How much horse power?

[John doe]

I don't think bessler was a fraud.
I was amazed at the amount of information first hand accounts independent and even prejudiced individuals (against) that attested to the credibility of bessler and his wheel not to mention court records that failed to find evidence of any fraud or trickery. Lastly the rather reliable testimony of count Karl that he had personally seen and could confirm that it was indeed a true PMM. All of this evidence leads me to believe bessler's wheel was indeed the real deal.

[ovyyus]

I do not concur.

If Bessler's PM was powered by gravity/inertia then it would meet the current definition of PM because gravity/inertia are not energy sources.

The perpetual lamp has been sought after for at least as long as the perpetual motion. What if Bessler found the long sought after perpetual lamp (he studied alchemy) and applied 'free' heat to power the long sought after overbalanced wheel? A 'free' heat source powering a classic overbalanced wheel mechanism resulting in Bessler's 'true PM'. If Bessler's secret was a 'free' heat source then searching for a gravity/inertia solution to his secret is the wrong path.

[Furcurequs]

ovyyus,

In Bessler's albeit limited descriptions of the inner workings of his device, I've personally not seen anything that appears to suggest he employed a heat engine of any sort. If he did actually use some sort of heat engine hidden inside of his wheel or his wheel itself was in some way functioning as a heat engine, I would say his descriptions are so seemingly lacking in relevant information about such operation that I would consider them to be fraudulent.

In other words, I personally believe that his claims, whether fraudulent or not, were of a working Perpetual Motion Machine of (or akin to) the traditional overbalanced wheel variety that had been pursued even before his time.

Based on what is understood and accepted in current science, a perpetual lamp would of course be as problematic as an overbalanced wheel. So, if Bessler did use a heat engine in his wheel, that would most likely have meant a hidden fuel source, too, and thus he would have been a fraud even appealing to the PMM definition of his time.

I'll now remind everyone of my own "beliefs" about Bessler's claims:

First, I absolutely do not rule out the possibility of fraud on Bessler's part.

...but I do believe there is something of a ring of truth to his story.

I haven't ruled out the possibility that scientists have overlooked some things that might allow for a gravity powered motor.

I personally have specific ideas along these lines that I'm trying to get tested, and I've truly not seen these ideas attempted before.

...and so just my stance on things, fwiw.

Dwayne

[WaltzCee]

25,020 mph. You can't be serious.

If I'm pushed a bit, yes I can. I can be as serious as a heart attack.

The actual factor wrt escape velocity (according to my calculations) is about 50 or 60. This velocity is give and take; it all balances. Terminal velocity has the other end of the stick.

Bessler saw the same thing and he termed it "up in a flash" and "they gain energy by swinging".

Having said all that, would you care to explain how third derivative of position fits in to all this?

[WaltzCee]

If Bessler's wheel met the criteria for 'true PM' in 1712, but does not meet the criteria today, then his wheel was not producing energy from gravity and/or inertia and the laws of physics stand. Of course, that also means that everyone searching for a gravity/inertia powered solution to Bessler's wheel is barking up the wrong tree.

This is poorly written and I'm going to rewrite it.

(a)

If Bessler's wheel met the criteria for 'true PM' in 1712, but does not meet the criteria today, . . .

Things change. They thought differently than we do now. We know a bit more than they did. So far, true.

(b)

then his wheel was not producing energy from gravity and/or inertia and the laws of physics stand.

Here it is. This is where it's getting twisted. This is the moment this line of reasoning breaks down. This is the precise moment conclusions don't follow the premise.

(c)

Of course, that also means . . .

Well, hey. If b = bull crap and c = b then you can ignore c also. It's pure bull crap too.

[WaltzCee]

If Bessler's PM was powered by gravity/inertia then it would meet the current definition of PM because gravity/inertia are not energy sources.

With all do respect, this is not true. The current definition of PM is that it doesn't exist. Ask the Physics Girl.

According to her, a perpetual motion machine is something that is a sad little pendulum and PM is the snake oil of physics.

If you're paying attention then you know you didn't hear it here first.

[ovyyus]

In Bessler's albeit limited descriptions of the inner workings of his device, I've personally not seen anything that appears to suggest he employed a heat engine of any sort. If he did actually use some sort of heat engine hidden inside of his wheel or his wheel itself was in some way functioning as a heat engine, I would say his descriptions are so seemingly lacking in relevant information about such operation that I would consider them to be fraudulent.

Bessler could not be called a fraud for failing to disclose his secret energy source.

Bessler was trying to sell the long sought overbalanced wheel and he had no problem describing and illustrating overbalance mechanisms (MT), a critical part of any overbalanced wheel, but he never discussed his prime mover/horse/energy source because that was his secret and he dared not let it slip. He was concerned that a buyer might want to snatch back their money once they saw his secret. How could a buyer be disappointed with 'true PM'? Bessler was probably also concerned about potential legal challenge after the sale, and the possibility of endless debate about the definition of PM, hence his strict conditions of sale. It was all about the money.

Based on what is understood and accepted in current science, a perpetual lamp would of course be as problematic as an overbalanced wheel. So, if Bessler did use a heat engine in his wheel, that would most likely have meant a hidden fuel source, too, and thus he would have been a fraud even appealing to the PMM definition of his time.

It wouldn't be fraud if Bessler could show a hidden perpetual energy source (fuel or otherwise) that did not diminish over time. Of course, there might be disappointment after unrealistic expectations are not met, but Bessler didn't force anyone to believe his wheel was powered by gravity/inertia.

[ME]

Ovyyus: but if Bessler used a heat-source it would have been felt.
There's some text stating some observers in an ice-cold castle near the wheel, they could have warmed themselves up at the wheel; but such is not mentioned. Unless there could exist a heat-source without (or fully-captured) radiant energy?

Waltzcee, how could there be a velocity in the range of v[earth.escape]?
When I naively fill in E=0.5*m*v^2, and use the wooden-wheel-structure as maximum potential before PMM (as shown before), I could theoretically get a maximum-velocity-equivalence of about half of v[Earth.escape]. I'm not sure if such makes practical sense as some permanent wheel-feature; perhaps when considering things going at atomic-level?
What's your theory behind such velocity?

[Grimer]

25,020 mph. You can't be serious.

If I'm pushed a bit, yes I can. I can be as serious as a heart attack.

The actual factor wrt escape velocity (according to my calculations) is about 50 or 60. This velocity is give and take; it all balances. Terminal velocity has the other end of the stick.

Bessler saw the same thing and he termed it "up in a flash" and "they gain energy by swinging".

Having said all that, would you care to explain how third derivative of position fits in to all this?

DYOR

[Grimer]

...
What's your theory behind such velocity?

He hasn't got one. He's an idiot.

[ME]

Ah well, perhaps hard to admit but in some way and up to some point we all are... How else could we get out of our little boxes?

Talking about idiocy, does the following make some sense?
Let's say I've a Bessler wheel producing 100 Watts.
That's 360 kJ/hour, and could theoretically lift 9170 kg, 4 meters high (I don't think my top-floor can handle such weight)

That's also 6000 Joules per minute, and can lift 153 kg, 4 meters high.
But when I then kick this 153kg out of the window, I get my 6 kJ back but only in 0.903 seconds.
Would the following fraction be an indication of PMM efficiency?: (0.903 sec./60 sec.) = 1.505 %

And perhaps to compare the state of current physics:
it would take either an infinite amount of time (which would mean 0%) but it'll never happen,
or a counter weight is needed doing at best a 0.903 downwards to do lifting: (0.903/(-0.903))= -100%

[John doe]

Can someone explain to me what a centrifugal force field is? I think I saw one on an episode of Star Trek but I'm not sure😂

[ovyyus]

but if Bessler used a heat-source it would have been felt.

You think finding a gravity/inertia energy source is more likely than hiding a low energy heat source? One can be accomplished, but not the other.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Ovyyus,

I would say yes, if I had to run the brick lifting tests, at peoples request.

[rlortie]

Can someone explain to me what a centrifugal force field is? I think I saw one on an episode of Star Trek but I'm not sure😂

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 840#page-1

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8471800644

http://www.gunt.de/download/separation% ... nglish.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 257#page-1