How much horse power?

[rlortie]

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.

Bill and I have touched on this in the past.

Name me one source of usable energy source that does not create heat in its function of producing power, be it chemical, electrical mechanical or bio. The term used is; "Exothermic"...

Combustion reactions of fuels
Neutralization
Burning of a substance
Deposition of dry ice (carbon dioxide) from the gaseous state
Adding water to anhydrous copper(II) sulfate
The thermite reaction
Reactions taking place in a self-heating can based on lime aluminium
Many corrosion reactions such as oxidation of metals
Most polymerization reactions
The Haber process of ammonia production
Respiration
Decomposition of vegetable matter into compost
Solution of sulfuric acid into water
Dehydration of sugars upon contact with sulfuric acid
Detonation of nitroglycerin

If Bessler's wheels produced usable force you can bet that they also produced heat in the process if only by friction.

Question is: could they have deliberately been designed to build enough heat to be self-sufficient, yet cool enough to be insignificant to the witnesses.

Ralph

[Grimer]

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

Interesting that Ralph.

I suppose a centripetal force field would be one where items less dense than the surrounding medium are driven to the centre.

A variant of that would be the diver in a bottle I remember as a boy. Push the cork down and he sinks. Let the cork up again and he rises to the surface.

[ME]

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.

I don't know what to think.
According to current physics it should not only be "unlikely", but considered complete non-sense.

I have some slight hope there's either some possible resonance or force deflection to be found in some combination of simple machines. Perhaps it's all in vain or perhaps the golden combination is amazingly counter-intuitive.
So I cling on to my secondary objective to simply re-iterate all that severely neglected knowledge of physics so I've at least one win-situation.

Basically you say: save the trouble because Bessler used trickery.

(something like a Aeolipile[285 BC], Papin steam engine [1707], Savery Engine [1698] ?)

[Grimer]

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.

Bill and I have touched on this in the past.

Name me one source of usable energy source that does not create heat in its function of producing power, be it chemical, electrical mechanical or bio. The term used is; "Exothermic"...

Combustion reactions of fuels
Neutralization
Burning of a substance
Deposition of dry ice (carbon dioxide) from the gaseous state
Adding water to anhydrous copper(II) sulfate
The thermite reaction
Reactions taking place in a self-heating can based on lime aluminium
Many corrosion reactions such as oxidation of metals
Most polymerization reactions
The Haber process of ammonia production
Respiration
Decomposition of vegetable matter into compost
Solution of sulfuric acid into water
Dehydration of sugars upon contact with sulfuric acid
Detonation of nitroglycerin

If Bessler's wheels produced usable force you can bet that they also produced heat in the process if only by friction.

Question is: could they have deliberately been designed to build enough heat to be self-sufficient, yet cool enough to be insignificant to the witnesses.

Ralph

Releasing the energy of a suitable prestressed structure where the energy released from the compressed phase, exothermic, is equal to the energy taken up by the tensioned phase, endothermic.

One phase expands the other contracts. No net energy released to the environment. Cold fusion. Cold fission.

One source of usable energy would be ice cubes running a Stirling motor.
It doesn't create heat. It creates cold. It draws heat from the environment and leave the environment colder - not hotter.
Not very economic perhaps - but then you did say "usable". ;-)

[oldNick]

Grimer, There is no such thing as cold! everything above absolute zero is heat.

[eccentrically1]

Basically you say: save the trouble because Bessler used trickery.

No, Bessler wouldn't have been accused of trickery, perpetual motion back then included what we now say is trickery. Why can't everyone get that?

[Grimer]

Grimer, There is no such thing as cold! everything above absolute zero is heat.

Have you never heard of ectropy. No? I thought not.

Your house must be very disordered because there is no such thing as order.

What was it Thatcher said? "There in no such thing as society."

Idiot.

[John doe]

This is not directed at anyone in particular just a though on why scientists generally don't make the best inventors and or why accidents are so often the cause of inventions.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

[John doe]

Anither reason I do not believe that bessler used fraud or trickery is because he was willing to put his payment in escrow while his invention was evaluated by potential buyers. So what did he have to gain by his supposed fraud or trickery? Not only that if proven a fraud not only would he likely not receive any money but would likely face criminal prosecution and lengthy jail time or worse if nothing else the for making Count Karl out to be a fool. I'm sure that many people were severely punished or killed for lesser offenses to the ruling class.
This is also the reason why I believe his descriptions and published information is more or less on the up and up. Im not saying that it was 100% accurate or that there was no misinformation in his information and or wheels themselves such as scratching noises to cover other potential tells to his devices sources of motivation. I mean who would condemn him for protecting his invention but I think in the light of day he would most likely have to be shown as truthful if occasionally misleading or vague.

[ME]

Basically you say: save the trouble because Bessler used trickery.

No, Bessler wouldn't have been accused of trickery, perpetual motion back then included what we now say is trickery. Why can't everyone get that?

He was not accused because no-one knew the principle, but Bessler did.
AFAIK most (if not all) information points towards a mechanical solution where some weights swing in some weird way inside a drum.

When it is claimed a gravity/inertia-wheel is impossible, and some heat-source is used (may I assume a heat source is not considered Perpetual even in Bessler's time?), then how can such claim not point towards active trickery?

The other option: Bessler invented some mechanical thing with heat-exchange-abilities operating inside the wheel and Bessler was oblivious about any connection with heat (but would that provide sufficient power?).

[eccentrically1]

Of course he wasn't accused of trickery because he couldn't sell it, so he destroyed whatever the principle (trick to us) was.

Some of bessler's drawings show other things besides swinging weights.

If an external heat source was used, it wouldn't have been considered trickery. That's what people don't seem to understand.

The "sufficient power" is a moving target. I think the evidence shows the wheels' power were not only finite, but relatively weak for their sizes.

[John doe]

Just so I'm clear the how the term "trick" is being used as in "intent to deceive." ?

[ME]

As I translate: trick = intent to deceive

So he showed some weight under a cloth, he installed it inside some wheel, he let that wheel stop by men, and drag the wheel around from one side of the room to another side, then he let them seal the room for 58 days, and more of such things implying all was weight & wheel & unknown mechanical arrangements...

But actually there was an "unmentioned" external heat source....? <-- no trick?

Perhaps he created some Non-PMM-sterling-like engine inside that wheel... then again: while extraordinary, still a trick I guess.

In the last case he was still way ahead of time (as in small-scale heat engine), he could just have shown that and leaving that wooden wheel hocus-pocus out of it, and still conceal the actual mechanism inside some box.

Some part makes at some point absolutely no sense, according to me at least.

[Grimer]

This is not directed at anyone in particular just a thought on why scientists generally don't make the best inventors and or why accidents are so often the cause of inventions.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

As the scientist to whom your remark was not directed in particular ;-) I agree with you entirely. Not only that but many if not most scientific discoveries come about by accident rather than by design.
However, it takes a prepared mind to recognise the significance of that accident or anomaly, in my case to recognise that my concrete stress strain relationships were telling me that things are held together from without, not from within, and that bonds, like the housewife's vacuum cleaner suck, are simply negations, simply a deficit of some external pressure.

http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/Southampton%20paper.pdf

[ovyyus]

As I translate: trick = intent to deceive

What do you call a trick when everyone is deceived, including the trickster?

James Cox honestly believed his self-winding clock was a 'true PM'. Was that a trick?

Hypothetically, suppose James Cox kept his 'true PM' clock secret before selling it to a buyer. Could an unhappy buyer successfully dispute the 'true PM' definition of Cox's clock in a mid-1760's court of law?