Aldo Costa

[Tarsier79]

I know this is old old news:

A machine to die for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3lX-dKKVpo

Aldo Costa's wheel is the only true PM wheel I know of.

I have heard it can stop from time to time, but I suspect that is due to its principle of operation. It is a generic OB wheel, powered by air pressure difference between the bottom and top. The slight difference is harvested with the use of a mechanism to compress a spring at the bottom with a pressure assist, and uses the spring and less air pressure up high to push the weights back out into OB.

Is this the principle Bessler used, but perhaps using a different pressure differential?

[StephenG345]

No the pressure differential is not what Bessler used!

[Tarsier79]

No the pressure differential is not what Bessler used!

StephenG345, Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Not only does Bessler toy with pressure in MT, he was also an organ builder. The organs of the day working with bellows and hydrostatic and air pressure. Bessler also loved his mercury, which would also create significantly more pressure for depth for more potential power vs height. It also might be why Bessler liked to build his wheels 9 and 12 feet high.

[WaltzCee]

I have heard it can stop from time to time, but I suspect that is due to its principle of operation. It is a generic OB wheel, powered by air pressure difference between the bottom and top. The slight difference harvested

Would you agree not different from the atomos clock.

Although gravity is outside the wheel, perpetual motion from gravity is considered creatio ex nihilo since gravity is a conservative force.
.

• conservative force:
  What comes down equals what's needed to get it back up plus some extra to cover losses.

14.7 psi

[Tarsier79]

No, I do not think it the same as the atmos clock.(ADD: The difference is the pressure difference goes to the atmos clock, but the Aldo wheel goes to the pressure difference.) But I guess it would be the equivalent if we mounted an Atmos clock at each weight position, using the pressure differential as it rose and fell to drive a weight into OB with the Atmos.

Again, you are correct. The math doesn't add up, even for the pressure difference, because air is weight. A pressurised container weighs more than a depressurised one. THe weight it can move is equal to the weight difference over the height of the wheel....

So what is the secret?

[WaltzCee]

No, I do not think it the same as the atmos clock. But I guess it would be the equivalent if we mounted an Atmos clock at each weight position, using the pressure differential as it rose and fell to drive a weight into OB with the Atmos.

I misspelt atomos. :)

Why would a sensor need to be at each weight?

So what is the secret?

To Aldo Costa's wheel?

[Tarsier79]

Yes, Aldo's wheel.

Aldo claimed to have the math to back up his machine. Math says it should be conservative... So

1. There is a trick, and it is driven.
2. Our math is lacking, Or something isn't conservative.
3. We are missing the true driving force/principle.

[WaltzCee]

I'm going to go with 2.

ETA
Just looked at the pic. More energy can be squeezed out of time/space than the little slice he's diagrammed.

[WaltzCee]

The difference is the pressure difference goes to the atmos clock, but the Aldo wheel goes to the pressure difference

The only difference is how the device senses a pressure difference?

I suppose that's no difference if you're thinking in terms of gravity.

Atmospheric/temperature gradients are an extra energy source

Looking at his diagram it seems to suggest he's exploiting a height/width difference by wrapping some of the rotation around 2 axles.

[Tarsier79]

To take advantage of the pressure difference, you need a pressure vessel....

So, At the top, the vessel, which was pressurised at the bottom, now is triggered, and releases its pressure along with the spring. It also lifts a weight.
The pressure vessel is now lighter, but weight is lifted into OB.

At the bottom, It is triggered again. The wheel forces itself around and compresses the spring, the weight is lifted and a small amount of energy is supplied by the pressure vessel, as the higher pressure now wants to enter the vessel.

As the vessel moves up, it is heavy because the air is more compressed inside. As the vessel moves down, it is lighter comparably because the air inside has been expelled. The weight in the air vessel works opposite to the OB, and hinders rotation.

The Atmos clock sits in place and the changes in pressure come to it. It doesn't matter if the pressure vessel in it is heavy or light. It is driven. The AC wheel requires the pressure vessel to drive to the pressure difference.

[Tarsier79]

Further to this: Ultimately, for there to be a gain in energy required to drive the wheel, the pressure vessel needs to lift more weight than its own change in weight.

I have calculated this transaction with fluid. There is always an equal transaction. I can't imagine there would be a difference just because he is using a gas, except that the gas always takes up all the space available.

We know the other forces and factors acting on the Aldo Costa Wheel are conservative or take from the equation: Gravity, spring, weight, leverage and friction.

256 weights are pretty impressive, but the torque seems quite small. Aldo, like Bessler is using gravity and OB as an energy transformer.

[SHADOW]

A ce que je me souvienne il n'y a pas de système utilisant un différentiel de pression sur la roue Costa.
Il utilise un système mécanique pour changer la position des poids, aidé par des ressorts.
Les sites d'origine de Costa ne sont plus accessibles apparemment, il faudrait que je fouille mes archives pour confirmer mon argumentation.
Les bouteilles que l'on voit sur la roue servent de carter pour protéger les ressorts.
J.B
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEbq9aPPaxg


Article récupéré sur internet:

Elle fonctionne comme toute gravitolienne, par différence de couple.
Elle fait 17 mètres de diamètre à la jante, et est équipée de 236 mécanismes à levier et ressort, agissant sur 236 poids de 2,240 kg chacun, coulissant de 3,4 cm, installés de chaque côté de la roue, de façon décalée.
Particularité: le nombre de poids actifs plus éloignés du centre de la roue est strictement égal au nombre de poids actifs plus rapprochés du centre de la roue.
Les 2 poids (1 en haut, et 1 en bas), en cours de changement de position ne sont pas considérés comme actifs puisque le couple qu'ils induisent est égal à zéro.
Autre particularité: la différence de rayon entre poids plus éloignés et poids plus rapprochés est uniforme; elle est de 3,4 cm.

Le calcul de son couple est donc relativement facile.
Son couple exact, sans tenir compte de la manœuvre des poids, est de 10,12 kg/m.
A partir de ce couple, sachant qu'elle fait un tour en pratiquement 5 minutes, il est aisé de calculer sa puissance:
On a donc (10,12 x 6,28 x 1) : (75 x 300) = 0,0028 ch 0,0028 : 1,36 = 0,00205 kW, soit 2,05 Watts

10,12 étant le couple en kg/m

6,28 étant 2 fois pi

1 étant le nombre de tours

75 étant le nombre de kg/m/s correspondant à 1 ch

300 étant le nombre de secondes que dure un tour.

Il est aussi facile de calculer la puissance absorbée par la manœuvre des poids et la compression des ressorts (les ressorts servant à remonter les poids, lorsqu'ils arrivent en haut de la roue, je calcule donc une remontée de 3,4 cm, même si la compression du ressort absorbe sans doute un peu plus de puissance que cette remontée):

(2,24 x 0,034 x 2 x 236) : (75 x 300) = 0,00159 ch 0,00159 : 1,36 = 0,00117 kW, soit 1,17 W

2,24 étant la masse de chaque poids, en kg

0,034 étant la course de chaque poids en m

2 étant le nombre de fois que chaque poids parcourt cette course pendant un tour

75 étant le nombre de kg/m/s correspondant à 1 ch

300 étant le nombre de secondes que dure un tour.

On peut donc en déduire la puissance disponible à l'axe.
La puissance utile de la roue est donc de:

2,05 - 1,17 = 0,88 Watts...

C'est très peu!
Le problème de cette roue n'est pas son couple; il est assez important; c'est sa faible vitesse de rotation.
Autre problème:
La roue de Costa tourne parce qu'elle est grande!
En effet, si on la réalisait à l'échelle 1/10, c'est à dire en lui donnant 1,70 m de diamètre, elle tournerait, théoriquement, mais dans la pratique, elle ne tournerait pas; pourquoi?

Si on respecte scrupuleusement l'échelle, la course des poids serait de 3,4 mm (divisée par 10)
La masse des poids serait de 2,24 g (divisée par 1000)
Le couple serait donc divisé par 10000; il serait de:
0,001012 kg/m, soit 1,012 g/m
Il risquerait d'être totalement neutralisé par tous les frottements.

Si cette roue, telle qu'elle est actuellement, ne présente aucun intérêt énergétique, elle n'en présente pas moins un immense intérêt scientifique, car elle démontre qu'une roue gravitationnelle peut tourner.

Saluons l'audace et le courage de M. Aldo Costa qui y a consacré toute sa vie et ses économies!
Il mérite tout notre respect!


As far as I can remember there is no system using a pressure differential on the Costa wheel.
It uses a mechanical system to change the position of the weights assisted by springs.
The original sites of Costa are apparently no longer accessible, I would have to search my archives to confirm my argument.
The cylinders on the wheel are used to protect the springs.
J.B.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEbq9aPPaxg

Article retrieved from internet:

It works like any gravitolian, by difference of torque.
It is 17 metres in diameter on the rim, and is equipped with 236 lever and spring mechanisms, acting on 236 weights of 2.240 kg each, sliding 3.4 cm, installed on each side of the wheel, in a staggered manner.
Special feature: the number of active weights further away from the centre of the wheel is strictly equal to the number of active weights closer to the centre of the wheel.
The 2 weights (1 at the top and 1 at the bottom), in the process of changing position are not considered active since the torque they induce is equal to zero.
Another peculiarity: the difference in radius between more distant and closer weights is uniform; it is 3.4 cm.

The calculation of its torque is therefore relatively easy.
Its exact torque, regardless of weight handling, is 10.12 kg/m.
From this torque, knowing that it makes a lap in practically 5 minutes, it is easy to calculate its power:
We therefore have (10.12 x 6.28 x 1): (75 x 300) = 0.0028 hp 0.0028: 1.36 = 0.00205 kW, or 2.05 Watts

10.12 being the torque in kg/m

6.28 being 2 times ft

1 being the number of turns

75 being the number of kg/m/s corresponding to 1 ch

300 being the number of seconds a turn lasts.

It is also easy to calculate the power absorbed by the handling of the weights and the compression of the springs (the springs used to lift the weights, when they reach the top of the wheel, I calculate a lift of 3.4 cm, even if the compression of the spring probably absorbs a little more power than this lift):

(2.24 x 0.034 x 2 x 236): (75 x 300) = 0.00159 hp 0.00159: 1.36 = 0.00117 kW, or 1.17 W

2.24 being the mass of each weight, in kg

0.034 being the stroke of each weight in m

2 being the number of times each weight travels this race during a lap

75 being the number of kg/m/s corresponding to 1 ch

300 being the number of seconds that lasts

We can therefore deduce the available power at the axis.
The useful power of the wheel is therefore:

2.05 - 1.17 = 0.88 Watts...

That is very little!
The problem with this wheel is not its torque; it’s quite large; it’s its low speed of rotation.
Another issue:
Costa’s wheel turns because it’s big!
Indeed, if it were made on a 1/10 scale, that is to say by giving it a diameter of 1.70 m, it would rotate, theoretically, but in practice, it would not rotate; why?

If the scale is strictly adhered to, the weight stroke would be 3.4 mm (divided by 10)
Weight would be 2.24 g (divided by 1000)
The couple would therefore be divided by 10,000; it would be:
0.001012 kg/m or 1.012 g/m
It could be completely neutralized by all friction.

If this wheel, as it is now, is of no energy interest, it is nonetheless of immense scientific interest, because it shows that a gravitational wheel can rotate.

Let us salute the audacity and courage of Mr. Aldo Costa who has devoted his entire life and his savings to this!
He deserves our respect!

[Tarsier79]

JB: If air pressure (or another extra energy) is not used, it will not work.

Rotation will not self sustain. The spring does not add to the equation, it only takes away.
It takes the same energy to lift a weight as it does to drop it, so all the extra frictions will bring it to a halt.

[Fletcher]

My first thoughts (way back when) were it needs a push start, but why isn't it accelerating if there was true imbalance of forces ? It should do !

2002 Scott Ellis Report on Costa OOB Wheel.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/241.html


https://www.wired.com/2004/12/reinventing-the-wheel/

Says ran up to 3 hours - aided by the wind.

[johannesbender]

I suapect some other source was at play , perhaps even hidden , i have never seen nor heard of effeciency increasing when scale increases .

I remember the close ups on the mechanism on the old bessler board linked by Fletcher , and im sure if we had the actual mechanisms details , a sim could be made , which i suspect would indicate that the mechanisms cant drive the wheel or the wheel cant drive the mechanims , i would like to think i could be wrong.