Forget it

[rlortie]

Hello Jim,

Common sense tells me that you should get off the computer and build the motion wheel you you keep claiming to have the answers to. That would end all this frivolous debate.

First you said that you wanted to wait until your divorce was finalized, then it was building plastic desk top models. Just out of curiosity how many of these models have you made so far?

If your more concerned about how powerful steam engines of Bessler's time were, I found some good links just a couple of days ago. I did not bookmark them as they were of no interest to me. If interested I will check Firefox tab history and see if I can pull them up.

And by the way: they also explained the pointed/tapered bearings with the female conical screw.

Do you have your firewood gathered for the winter, or are you saving that for an excuse for farther delay?

So Karl paid Bessler for a peek of his wheel with a promise not to reveal, how much would you charge for the same agreement? You do have one don't you, only you can not reveal the fact because of the "plan"...

If you believe cloud camper is a thorn in your side, watch out! Its liable to get infected.

Ralph

[rlortie]

http://www.alexdenouden.nl/08/lubri.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ub1KAA ... gs&f=false
Scroll up to get the complete story, here you will also find discussion regarding start up fiction and friction in motion.

http://www.uidaho.edu/~/media/Files/org ... thre2.ashx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine

[ovyyus]

Come on Bill, you have said Bessler's wheel produced 20 Watts, or less than 0.03 HP. I feel it produced more than 140 Watts, or almost 1/5 HP.

You missed my point. Doesn't your 'motion wheel' speculation allow for potentially much higher outputs than 140 Watts from a 12 foot wheel? Interestingly, that seems supported by Bessler's own claim that wheel power can be made as large or as small as desired. Bessler said his wheels were mere demonstration models. As mere demonstration models they were supposedly not designed primarily for great feats of work but rather were limited by the demonstration requirements, ie: restricted by size, translocation weight, long duration unattended operation, etc. But their potential to do great feats of work was most definitely promoted as a realistic expectation. If that were true then why did Karl not adopt the technology?

My point here is that yes, Bessler's wheel was much more powerful than the weak 20 Watts that Bill espouses. But it was much weaker than the steam engines that were starting to be built.

Once again, doesn't your 'motion wheel' proposal offer the potential to provide output power much higher than 140 Watts from a 12 foot wheel if not restricted by the limitations imposed by a mere demonstration model?

Come on guys, use a little common sense when discussing these type of things.

Common sense is clearly a matter of perspective :)

[jim_mich]

So what is your point Ralph? Spit it out. I'm not a mind reader. Obviously something is bothering you. You keep making erroneous statements. I point out why they are wrong. And you attack me rather than addressing your errors. Then you post a bunch of links, some to centuries old documents. I've not the time nor inclination to read through all the links you posted, and then try to decipher your point of contention. You need better presentation. And not the long winded rambling type you are well known for.

My original contention was and still is that you don't understand the meaning of inertia. I base this contention upon your statement...

Without friction your start up or initial inertia would be negligible.

And previously you made a statement to the effect that inertia or momentum were different without gravity. And you keep insisting that a wheel cannot be made to rotate without gravity.

Instead of discussing these subjects, you personally verbally attack me.

[rlortie]

I am not personally attacking you! I am asking you as a fellow forum member to quit procrastinating over trivia whether it be of interest to you or not,

You have made claims that members would like to see you either fulfill or succeed these claims.

As for the links I posted, you stated you were interested in early steam engines, and recently we were discussing bearing friction. The links also address start up bearing friction.

you keep insisting that a wheel cannot be made to rotate without gravity.

Then physically-objectively prove me wrong!

Ralph

Law of Logical Argument- Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

[eccentrically1]

There are videos on the web of the cascades as they look today. It looks like a lot of water, and its a long way down from the origin to the bottom. I have a pump in my basement that is a third HP. It pumps 2160 gallons an hour to max. Of 15 feet.
http://t.homedepot.com/p/Flotec-1-3-HP- ... 585?N=bqjx

The cascades fill a big pond at the bottom it would be difficult to estimate how much water it is. If someone really wanted to know how they do it, i suppose it would be possible to find out. but, it's a lot of water. If you had a pump that didn't need fuel (ever. not ever, just motion fuel, or a little push to get it started), scaled up, it would eventually get the water back up.

So that doesn't really explain why he didn't buy it, either. imagine having the only cascade in europe powered by perpetual motion. that would have been pretty sweet.

It wasn't perpetual motion.

[ovyyus]

IIRC, the cascades don't run continually, rather the water is pumped up to the 'octagon' where it is stored and released periodically.

[jim_mich]

Once again, doesn't your 'motion wheel' proposal offer the potential to provide output power much higher than 140 Watts from a 12 foot wheel if not restricted by the limitations imposed by a mere demonstration model?

Is this a question about my 'motion wheel' or Bessler's 'motion wheel'? Bessler was limited by forces verses materials. He was using a purely mechanical method. His method threatened to beat his wheel into slivers.

I am asking you as a fellow forum member to quit procrastinating

Sorry Ralph, some people are blessed with good health. Other must suffer. I could go into details, but doing so would serve no purpose.

eccentrically1, it is not a matter of moving the water back up. Given enough time, any pump would get the job done. It is a matter of moving the water back as fast as it cascades down. That requires a whole lot more energy.

As a reference... I'm familiar with this cascade...
The city of Jackson Michigan has a water cascade. It requires significant power to operate. Only by seeing such a cascade first hand do you get a feel for the huge amount of water required. It is like continually pumping a small steam back to the top of a fairly tall hill. The main pump is the original pump from 1930s and is rated for 2000 gpm. There is a 1000 GPM backup pump. The fall's height is 64 feet. There are separate pumps for the fountains.

2000 gallons (about 16000 lbs) of water every minute to a height of 64 feet requires about 32 HP, not counting friction. My guess is the cascade's main pump motor is most likely an industrial size 40 to 50 HP.

The Jackson cascade pumps the water all summer long, so as to prevent algae from growing and to keep the water filtered and chlorinated. In the fall it is drained, else the harsh Michigan winters would destroy it.

The Kassel cascade looks to be much bigger than the Jackson cascade, though I might be wrong.

Edit: Here is a YouTube video of the Jackson cascade...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj6XF0Fcmas

[eccentrically1]

eccentrically1, it is not a matter of moving the water back up. Given enough time, any pump would get the job done. It is a matter of moving the water back as fast as it cascades down. That requires a whole lot more energy.

I think bill is right , it was never meant to be a continuous cascade.

But you're missing the point. No matter how long it took, or how many wheels or size of wheels, it would have been the only cascade in the world powered by perpetual motion. So saying he didn't buy it because it wouldn't pump his cascade is ignoring that. There isn't a good argument for why he didn't buy it, except that it wasn't perpetual motion, which, obviously , if one understands physics, it wasn't.

[ovyyus]

Once again, doesn't your 'motion wheel' proposal offer the potential to provide output power much higher than 140 Watts from a 12 foot wheel if not restricted by the limitations imposed by a mere demonstration model?

Is this a question about my 'motion wheel' or Bessler's 'motion wheel'? Bessler was limited by forces verses materials. He was using a purely mechanical method. His method threatened to beat his wheel into slivers.

I thought writing your 'motion wheel' might be clear enough. Perhaps I needed to emphasise the word YOUR a little better.

So the question, once again, is: doesn't YOUR 'motion wheel' proposal offer the potential to provide output power much higher than 140 Watts from a 12 foot wheel if not restricted by the limitations imposed by a mere demonstration model (using a purely mechanical method and available 18th C materials)?

If the question still isn't clear please let me know and I'll try again.

[justsomeone]

Ecc1, if my wheel is an OOB wheel , driven by gravity, and rotates non stop till the parts where out, may I call it a perpetual motion wheel?

[jim_mich]

So the question, once again, is: doesn't YOUR 'motion wheel' proposal offer the potential to provide output power much higher than 140 Watts from a 12 foot wheel if not restricted by the limitations imposed by a mere demonstration model (using a purely mechanical method)?

A fluid model eliminates the mechanical limitations. And the driving force is continuous rather than 8 impulses per rotation. And a fluid model is much simpler and cheaper to build. It gives much greater power in a much smaller wheel. But of course I don't have any PM wheel because such things are impossible, isn't that right? ;)}

Cue clod camper...

[eccentrically1]

Ecc1, if my wheel is an OOB wheel , driven by gravity, and rotates non stop till the parts where out, may I call it a perpetual motion wheel?

If you had one, then yes.

[jim_mich]

If you had one, then yes.

But perpetual motion is defined as being something that is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to have a perpetual motion wheel. If you call it by the name of "perpetual motion" and it works, then it no longer fits the definition of of "perpetual motion". Catch 22. You cannot win.

[eccentrically1]

So the question, once again, is: doesn't YOUR 'motion wheel' proposal offer the potential to provide output power much higher than 140 Watts from a 12 foot wheel if not restricted by the limitations imposed by a mere demonstration model (using a purely mechanical method)?

A fluid model eliminates the mechanical limitations. And the driving force is continuous rather than 8 impulses per rotation. And a fluid model is much simpler and cheaper to build. It gives much greater power in a much smaller wheel. But of course I don't have any PM wheel because such things are impossible, isn't that right?

Right.