Suit yourself.eccentrically1 wrote:i can't go into details.
Toad Elevating Moment
Moderator: scott
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Jim:
Jim, do the members have to go through the forum looking for places you have violated the terms of the forum? This time I am not saying sorry, because Jim you’re a man-child and you need to grow up and that is the truth of the situation.
Jim you’re a great service to the forum and the new members, but why all the ego and attitude. If the forum members don’t tell you that your behaviour is wrong, how will you ever know, because everything is an insult to you?
.
Maybe reread my posts, I have never said much about you having the right to an opinion, too bad you don’t think the members have a right to an opinion and have to constantly endure your CF brainwashing and taunts to their beliefs.daxwc stoops to vulgarity, person attacks, and throws vulgar insults at me. (Which is against the terms of use of this forum) It's like he thinks I'm desecrating a holy sanctuary by suggesting that Basler’s wheel was not turned by gravity.
Jim, do the members have to go through the forum looking for places you have violated the terms of the forum? This time I am not saying sorry, because Jim you’re a man-child and you need to grow up and that is the truth of the situation.
Actually I and Cloud Camper have only had disagreements in the past (nor do I endorse his posts), so we are not cohorts, but nice try.Then his buddy cloud camper chimes in with taunts.
Jim you’re a great service to the forum and the new members, but why all the ego and attitude. If the forum members don’t tell you that your behaviour is wrong, how will you ever know, because everything is an insult to you?
.
What goes around, comes around.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Heh, Jim remember this insult of yours:
Pretty sure most people would see that as an insult... well all but one I guess. Hopefully you report yourself and we are even... or do I have to hunt down the thousand other times you broke forum rules? The rules were made for you too; maybe when members see you following them they will too.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... lng#104329Preoccupied, you dumb socialistic a-hole. Keep the government out. All they do is f### things up.
Pretty sure most people would see that as an insult... well all but one I guess. Hopefully you report yourself and we are even... or do I have to hunt down the thousand other times you broke forum rules? The rules were made for you too; maybe when members see you following them they will too.
What goes around, comes around.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Yes, but I suggest you put the whole post in perspective.daxwc wrote:Heh, Jim remember this insult of yours:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... lng#104329Preoccupied, you dumb socialistic a-hole. Keep the government out. All they do is f### things up.
Pretty sure most people would see that as an insult... well all but one I guess. Hopefully you report yourself and we are even... or do I have to hunt down the thousand other times you broke forum rules? The rules were made for you too; maybe when members see you following them they will too.
You dredged up a quote by me from two and a half years prior. Then you proceeded to bashed free enterprise. And you proposed a whole list of socialistic measures where government sticks its tentacles into private businesses.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone pushing for one group of people to take by force the assets and businesses of another group of people are dumb socialistic a-holes. Anyone who knows me personally soon knows that is my opinion. What you were proposing was taking away peoples freedom to do business unfettered by government intrusion. What you were proposing was socialism. I'm sorry if it offends you, but I'm a libertarian. And so were the Founding Fathers of my country. They fought for liberty and freedom. And you proposed tearing down liberty and replacing it with socialism.
That post of yours is why politics is not supposed to be a topic of discussion here on the forum.
Daxwc, you have a right to an opinion. But if you’re expressed opinion is about government interference and intrusion into liberty and freedom, then you can full well expect to hear my take on your opinion.
Enough said!
Edit: I did not bash you every time you posted from that point on. I let the subject drop.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Right... so your allowed to insult people on politics, but everybody else can't. What is next we must kneel down and kiss the Pope's ring on your little finger.
Hate to tell you Jim, but your not as special as your mom said you were. We are all equal here.
Hate to tell you Jim, but your not as special as your mom said you were. We are all equal here.
What goes around, comes around.
Hey, you brought up the political discussion back then, not me. Now you're saying that your political discussion was OK but, my response was wrong? That's a typical socialistic attitude where different rules apply to different groups of people.
And why do you drag my mom into this. She's been dead many years now.
And why do you drag my mom into this. She's been dead many years now.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
The discussion was about insulting people and equality, not politics. Quit evading the issue and you know the Mom statement was a figure of speech. I am sure you do want to drop it, too late; tired of your hurt little feelings all the time when people are joking. Who are you complaining and whining to on the forum that you’re being attacked anyway; nobody cares remember your Mom has been dead for years 8P….Don’t like my humour too bad.
If you want more examples of you insulting people let me know and I will post non-political ones.
If you want more examples of you insulting people let me know and I will post non-political ones.
What goes around, comes around.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Not true.jim_mich wrote:What other choices are there for rotating Bessler's wheel? There was not enough room inside Bessler's wheel to store enough energy to run for the six weeks demonstration.
Bessler's Kassel wheel was 12 feet diameter and 1.5 feet thick for a total volume of over 160 cubic feet. If we assume only 10 cubic feet is available for energy storage then that's still a lot of room.
Jim, you can imagine inertia PM but you can't imagine filling 10 cubic feet with something to drive a 20 Watt load for 6 weeks? A giant 10 cubic feet candle could easily burn for 6 weeks with a heat output much more than 20 Watts. See, it's not that hard :)jim_mich wrote:How do you explain it running that long?
Who yet knows?jim_mich wrote:Do you think gravity turned Bessler's wheel? Or do you think Bessler was a fraud?
Last edited by ovyyus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bill, you keep saying the wheel only produced 20 Watts, which is very clearly wrong. The Kassel wheel lifted 112 lbs at a rate of about 55 feet per minute, which works out to about 138 Watts. You claim that the wheel would have slowed down to the water pumping RPM, but there is no witnesses to such. Even slowing from 26 RPM to 20 RPM would still give about 106 Watts. And these figures do not take into account any friction. Since batteries and motors did not exist back then, the wheel would have had to store somewhere between 135,000 and 176,000 Watt hours of energy in some mechanical form.
A modern lead-acid battery would be between 47 and 62 cubic feet in volume to supply that amount of pure electric power. Modern electric motors are about 80% to 95% efficient. But the early electric motors were horribly inefficient. Probably well below 50%, though I cannot find any specific numbers. At 50% motor efficiency, the battery size doubles to somewhere in the range of 94 cu ft for 20 RPM to 124 cu ft for 26 RPM. This pretty much fills the whole wheel solid with batteries. And we cannot assume that batteries back then were anywhere near as efficient as today's lead-acid batteries. The batteries would weigh about 7250 lb to 9438 lbs. Even if the output was 20 Watts as Bill postulates, that would still require about 1350 lbs of batteries. Where all those weights that Bessler removed for the trans-location actually batteries?
Windup springs are not capable of this much energy storage in the space available in the wheel.
Some people, including Leibniz, suggested that the wheel held compressed air. But again, if you are a mechanic and calculate the volume and pressures needed to produce the rotational torque and the time that the wheel rotated, then there is absolutely no way for the wheel to have been driven by compressed air.
Using modern carbon-fiber material you might be able to make an air tank strong enough to hold a pressure high enough to accomplish the task. But back then there was no compressor pumps capable of producing such extremely high pressure needed for such a long run time.
Regardless of how you slice and dice it, there was absolutely nowhere near enough room inside the wheel to store enough energy to keep it running for as long as it did.
So yes, I absolutely can not imagine filling Bessler's wheel with any form of energy storage capable of running and working as Bessler's wheels did, except they produced the forceful rotational energy on a continuous perpetual basis.
If you don't believe me then do the math yourself, Bill. Your 20 watts is based upon estimates of water pumping and your claim of some sort of pulley reduction, which is never revealed in drawings and is debatable about its meaning. You totally ignore estimates based upon the weight lifted by the rope as clearly revealed in Bessler's drawings. Nor are your weak calculations supported by calculations of the hammer lifting. All honest calculations are about 10 times your figure. You seem to be biased toward a very weak wheel. You seem to have some sort of agenda against seeking true calculations.
Hey, EC and CC claim that they are super experts at physics. Let them (or anyone else who wants) do the calculation and see what Watts or HP they come up with. Here is a link to the Bessler Wheel Wiki where known and assumed wheel data is listed, along with calculations that I've done. If they dispute any of the data, then let them present reasons or sources for any discrepancies. Then have them show the results of their calculations. Obviously we'll never know exactly what Bessler's wheels produced, but we can get a strong feeling or hint to their output.
A modern lead-acid battery would be between 47 and 62 cubic feet in volume to supply that amount of pure electric power. Modern electric motors are about 80% to 95% efficient. But the early electric motors were horribly inefficient. Probably well below 50%, though I cannot find any specific numbers. At 50% motor efficiency, the battery size doubles to somewhere in the range of 94 cu ft for 20 RPM to 124 cu ft for 26 RPM. This pretty much fills the whole wheel solid with batteries. And we cannot assume that batteries back then were anywhere near as efficient as today's lead-acid batteries. The batteries would weigh about 7250 lb to 9438 lbs. Even if the output was 20 Watts as Bill postulates, that would still require about 1350 lbs of batteries. Where all those weights that Bessler removed for the trans-location actually batteries?
Windup springs are not capable of this much energy storage in the space available in the wheel.
Some people, including Leibniz, suggested that the wheel held compressed air. But again, if you are a mechanic and calculate the volume and pressures needed to produce the rotational torque and the time that the wheel rotated, then there is absolutely no way for the wheel to have been driven by compressed air.
Using modern carbon-fiber material you might be able to make an air tank strong enough to hold a pressure high enough to accomplish the task. But back then there was no compressor pumps capable of producing such extremely high pressure needed for such a long run time.
Regardless of how you slice and dice it, there was absolutely nowhere near enough room inside the wheel to store enough energy to keep it running for as long as it did.
So yes, I absolutely can not imagine filling Bessler's wheel with any form of energy storage capable of running and working as Bessler's wheels did, except they produced the forceful rotational energy on a continuous perpetual basis.
If you don't believe me then do the math yourself, Bill. Your 20 watts is based upon estimates of water pumping and your claim of some sort of pulley reduction, which is never revealed in drawings and is debatable about its meaning. You totally ignore estimates based upon the weight lifted by the rope as clearly revealed in Bessler's drawings. Nor are your weak calculations supported by calculations of the hammer lifting. All honest calculations are about 10 times your figure. You seem to be biased toward a very weak wheel. You seem to have some sort of agenda against seeking true calculations.
Hey, EC and CC claim that they are super experts at physics. Let them (or anyone else who wants) do the calculation and see what Watts or HP they come up with. Here is a link to the Bessler Wheel Wiki where known and assumed wheel data is listed, along with calculations that I've done. If they dispute any of the data, then let them present reasons or sources for any discrepancies. Then have them show the results of their calculations. Obviously we'll never know exactly what Bessler's wheels produced, but we can get a strong feeling or hint to their output.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Clear to you, that much is clear.jim_mich wrote:Bill, you keep saying the wheel only produced 20 Watts, which is very clearly wrong.
Jim, a small 2 inch diameter x 1 inch long candle can burn for 8 hours with a heat output equivalent of about 40 Watts. A 10 cubic feet volume can contain 720 such candles. Therefore, a 10 cubic feet candle might burn for 240 days with a heat output equivalent of about 40 Watts.
I did a little research. A 20 watt candle would burn about 5.6 oz of whale oil wax per hour. The wheel ran for 14 days then immediately for another 39 days, for a total of 53 days. 24 hours times 53 days equal 1272 hours, give or take a few depending on time of day of starting and stopping. 5.6 oz times 1272 hours is about 445 lbs of candle wax. Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 30% when used to power a car. We might assume the same for powering a wheel. Thus the candle wax must be increased to about 1781 to 1484 lbs. Being that candle wax is lighter than water (maybe 80% ??) this equates to somewhere in the range of 29.8 to 35.7 cubic feet of candle wax.
But if you try to run Bessler's hammer mill, or lift the weight as shown in Bessler's drawings (not the the pulley reduction imagined by Bill) then the energy required would be about 5 to 6 times as much as Bills 20 watt candle. So you then need somewhere in the range of 4 to 5 tons of candle wax. Which would be difficult to stuff inside the wheel while also having room for the heat engine and for some form of delivery mechanism to get the candle wax to the heat engine. And then you have he problem of needing an artificial horizon so as to have something for the heat engine to push against.
All told, I say there is not enough room inside Bessler's wheel for any type of energy storage for running any type of engine.
But if you try to run Bessler's hammer mill, or lift the weight as shown in Bessler's drawings (not the the pulley reduction imagined by Bill) then the energy required would be about 5 to 6 times as much as Bills 20 watt candle. So you then need somewhere in the range of 4 to 5 tons of candle wax. Which would be difficult to stuff inside the wheel while also having room for the heat engine and for some form of delivery mechanism to get the candle wax to the heat engine. And then you have he problem of needing an artificial horizon so as to have something for the heat engine to push against.
All told, I say there is not enough room inside Bessler's wheel for any type of energy storage for running any type of engine.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
I hurried through these calculations and had to hunt down some historical data. And I didn't take the time to type up references, so here are the references...
To find how much candle wax is burned, looked up the history of 'candelas' which were originally defined as the amount of light produced my burning 120 grains of whale oil wax ( spermaceti candle) per hour. Then I looked up how many Lumen were listed on a 60 watt light bulb package, which was 770. Converting Lumen to candelas gave me 61.275 candelas per 60 watts of electricity. So the 60 W bulb is producing 61.275 candelas, and each candelas would be burning 120 grains of oil, so the 60 w bulb is equal to 7353 grains of oil per hour, or 16.81 oz. Since Bill says 20 Watts, I divide by 3 and get 5.6 oz oil per hour to produce 20 watts of heat.
Of course you must figure the efficiency of the heat engine, etc, etc.
And you must decide how much you estimate the wheel output, which is where Bill and I disagree by a factor of about 6.
To find how much candle wax is burned, looked up the history of 'candelas' which were originally defined as the amount of light produced my burning 120 grains of whale oil wax ( spermaceti candle) per hour. Then I looked up how many Lumen were listed on a 60 watt light bulb package, which was 770. Converting Lumen to candelas gave me 61.275 candelas per 60 watts of electricity. So the 60 W bulb is producing 61.275 candelas, and each candelas would be burning 120 grains of oil, so the 60 w bulb is equal to 7353 grains of oil per hour, or 16.81 oz. Since Bill says 20 Watts, I divide by 3 and get 5.6 oz oil per hour to produce 20 watts of heat.
Of course you must figure the efficiency of the heat engine, etc, etc.
And you must decide how much you estimate the wheel output, which is where Bill and I disagree by a factor of about 6.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Rubbish. Even a politician wouldn't try to compare light output from a candle with power input to a light bulb :Djim_mich wrote:Converting Lumen to candelas gave me 61.275 candelas per 60 watts of electricity. So the 60 W bulb is producing 61.275 candelas, and each candelas would be burning 120 grains of oil, so the 60 w bulb is equal to 7353 grains of oil per hour, or 16.81 oz.
10 cubic feet contains about 25 Kg of wax. Paraffin wax has an energy content of about 42 kJ/g. If the candle burns at a rate of 11.6 J/s (11.6 Watts) then 1 g of wax will burn in 1 hr. Therefore 25 Kg of wax burning at a rate of 40 J/s (40 Watts) would burn for 7250 hours, or 302 days.
If the combined wax combustion/heat engine efficiency is only 25% then wax burn rate for 40 Watts engine output would be 13.8 g/hr. The 25 Kg candle burned at 13.8 g per hour would last for 75 days.
Last edited by ovyyus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
re: Toad Elevating Moment
Jim,
Why not send a forum member of your choice an NDA to sign, witnessed by a Notary. They mail it back and you send them one of your desktop vacuum formed plastic models for examination and analysis. End of story!
Where as I no longer pursue the path of attempting to duplicate Bessler's wheel via his writings and depictions, I could care less if it is a gravity or motion wheel.
I would like to see an end to this constant haggling and insinuations. You make it very hard to believe you have a self-sustained wheel and you ignore straight forward questions put to you.
Don't say you cannot answer as it violates your plan, you have already violated your plan more than once.
Why are you arguing over how many watts Bessler's wheel produced if you have your own setting in front of you and can measure the output.
Ralph
Why not send a forum member of your choice an NDA to sign, witnessed by a Notary. They mail it back and you send them one of your desktop vacuum formed plastic models for examination and analysis. End of story!
Where as I no longer pursue the path of attempting to duplicate Bessler's wheel via his writings and depictions, I could care less if it is a gravity or motion wheel.
I would like to see an end to this constant haggling and insinuations. You make it very hard to believe you have a self-sustained wheel and you ignore straight forward questions put to you.
Don't say you cannot answer as it violates your plan, you have already violated your plan more than once.
Why are you arguing over how many watts Bessler's wheel produced if you have your own setting in front of you and can measure the output.
Ralph
And if the wheel produced closer to 150 to 160 Watts, as I strongly believe it did, then the output would have required 4 such candles, and the wax would have been depleted in about 19 days, long before the 53 day test ended. and there would have been the smell of burning wax, and soot escaping from the seams of the canvas covering. And how could the heat engine be stationary part of the time while the wax kept burning? Was there a little steam engine inside? Obviously not because then you would need to replenish the water. So was it an IC engine. They are noisy and make popping noises. Was it a Sterling type engine. They had not been invented yet. The whole concept of there being any type of fuel consuming engine hidden inside the wheel is totally unbelievable to me.Bill wrote:If the combined wax combustion/heat engine efficiency is only 25% then wax burn rate for 40 Watts engine output would be 13.8 g/hr. The 25 Kg candle burned at 13.8 g per hour would last for 75 days.
Anyway, its 1:40 in the morning, and I have a long weekend ahead, so I'll be back next Tuesday.
Good night all,