Wheel Solved

[Kirk]

The math is m1v1=m2v2. The wheel is powered by impulse energy also known as momentum.If one examines a table of acceleration (rounded)
Time Velocity Distance
(second) (feet per second) (feet)
1.0 32 16
0.5 16 4
0.25 8 1

4 pounds accelerated for a quarter second has the equivalent momentum of 1 pound for a second. The potential energy is quite different though. 1 foot in the first case and 16 feet in the second case.The potential energy is 4 times larger. This difference between the two is available for other losses and output.

4 * 8 = 1 * 32 impulse energy
4 * 1 = 4 potential energy
16 * 1 = 16 potential energy
16 - 4 = 12 the surplus above the 4 to drive it.
(The mass of the lever has been omitted in this description)

The masses work in pairs, large mass lower velocity small mass higher velocity. The transformation is done with a lever. That which has been assumed a "stamp mill" is actually integral to the drive of the system. It is the large slow mass which launches the small mass to the top of the wheel.
The lever does not have to be pure overhead. If it is a hammer rather than the launched mass then part of the energy in the lever arm can be imparted to the target.
A low mass lever probably is bow shaped with a wire or restraint that "pre stresses" the lever. This enables construction of a lower mass lever.
An improvement to this would be to use electricity (solenoids).
Bessler didnt have access to that technology.
Kirk

[Kirk]

By the way this is NOT an April Fools joke. Ironic it got posted today but with the current state of my health I feared waiting longer. I emailed Scott yesterday re solving the wheel and he said to post in general discussion. I had wondered if he wanted to do a page on it or ...?
Am doing better today so am hopeful.
Kirk

[Fletcher]

Hi Kirk .. glad you are feeling stronger & good to hear from you again - can you manage a picture to illustrate what you are suggesting ? - it would help visualize the mechanism needed - my initial thoughts are that while two different masses at different speeds can have the same momentum [mv] this is not indicative of the ability to do work i.e. work done equals force times distance - kinetic energy is the capacity to do work rather than any momentum equivalence - or perhaps I'm entirely missing your point ?

[Kirk]

Impulse energy is just as real as force distance, just unfamiliar. When you make a course modification in space you thrust for a time - not distance as there is no nearby frame of reference.
That is why this has remained hidden. We think force distance as that is familiar.

kinetic energy (1/2mv2) is an attempt to determine the potential energy of a velocity. The mistake almost everyone makes is they calculate using pounds for m. It has to be expressed in slugs for a correct answer. For this reason the footpound tables of the cartridge manufacturers I have seen are absurdly wrong as they convert grains to pounds instead of slugs. Newton defined a slug as that mass which when operated on by a force of 1 pound accelerates at 1 foot per second. See how neatly he packaged the gravitational constant into the equation?

[AB Hammer]

Greetings and good health to you Kirk

I find your findings interesting, but like Fletcher said some diagrams would help explain what you mean.

Thanks

[path_finder]

Bessler said about childreen going from pillar to pillar (xthing like that). May be this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQK_xMg8Wow
If the weights don't have any contact with the wheel during the lift-up travel, Kirk could be right.

[greendoor]

Kirk - thank you for this post, and best wishes healthwise.

I believe you are very close. There are some aspects of Newtonian kinetics which seem to be brushed over lightly, and a lot has been taken for granted that was actually in debate for centuries.

We need to hear more about Impulse, not to mention Jerk, Jounce, Crackle & Pop.

D = Displacement
T = Time
D/T = Velocity
D/T^2 = Acceleration
D/T^3 = Jerk
D/T^4 = Jounce
D/T^5 = Crackle
D/T^6 = Pop

There is definately some room for debate about the meaning of Energy. When we peel back the thin veneer of textbook learning and try to wrap our heads around the actual meanings of things such as Momentum & Energy, it's not as clear as we have been led to believe.

I'm still trying to figure this out, but i've come to these temporary conclusions:

Velocity is Relative, therefore:
Momentum is Relative, and
Energy is Relative.
(because both are derived from Velocity).

Momentum & Energy (as defined by p = mv and e = 1/2mv^2) cannot be the same (mathematically). Therefore in some situations, in some reference frames, either Momentum is Conserved, or Energy is Conserved. Or maybe neither. That should be a serious WTF? for inquiring minds ...

With that said - I believe we need to be very careful about how and when we apply these basic kinetic equations. Nothing is quite what it seems ...

On another note: Bessler was fairly motived to hide his mechanism, because he had a lot at stake. I believe he used misdirection as well as any stage conjurer. And I believe he 'played with words'. I wouldn't say he lied - that would be against his religion. But I believe he probably was as economical with the truth as he could be. Considering the problems that we have in translating even modern languages, there are very likely some subtleties of word-play that have got lost in the translation. The point i'm trying to make is that we can't be 100% certain about some of the statements that Bessler allegedly said or wrote. Although I chose to believe he was an honest man, I also chose to believe he was very clever master of disguise & misdirection.

Sometimes the best place to "hide" something is in full view of the audience!

I believe you are correct in saying that the "stampers" are a fundamental part of the mechanism. But I would also say look further at everything else outside the wheel ...

I am working on a principle that I believe is the Bessler principle, and much of what you say aligns very closely. I don't presume to know how Bessler made his wheel: i'm just trying to figure out a crude experiment that will prove an energy gain, and my math model is similar yet different to yours. Time is vital.

If Bessler used a mechansim similar to what I have in mind, it requires certain configurations of components, and I wasn't seeing how he could fit these inside a wheel. He said that weights didn't hang off the wheel's axel - but that could be a misinterpretation of a word play. I figured the stamp box was important, but I hadn't realised how big (physically) these stamps would have been. I'm sure they are a big key.

Thanks!

[wheelrite]

I disagree the stamps are needed. I believe they were a way of demonstrating work , no more, like pumping water and lifting weights. A set of stamps may seems unfamiliar to us, but not in those days.
Regards
Jon

[Kirk]

As for a diagram I am in the public library as I dont have internet at the moment. I am typing with 2 fingers as usual and diagrams are not possible.

Just draw a line and place a fulcrum under it. Levers are marvelous things. Lifting rocks out of the garden is a force/distance thing and we are all familiar with the lever ratio transforming force/distance.
Levers also translate velocity. If we have for example a 4:1 lever and we accelerate the short end to 8 feet per second the long end is moving at 32 feet per second. The inertia of the lever is part of what has to be accelerated but as I stated earlier part of it can be recovered.

Gravity imparts the same amount of energy each unit time thus acceleration plots as a straight line. The distance traveled is not a straight line.
If you use an electrical analog the lever is a transformer.
Current is mass and voltage is velocity. Higher voltage (velocity) is more desirable as expressed by 1/2 mv2.
In a non elastic transformation v/2 is the cutoff as at that time the accelerated object is moving as fast as the available velocity put into the system by the slowed driving mass. An elastic collision is different.
Some interesting reading at
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/colsta.html

Also remember 1 second at 1g is equivalent to 100g for 1/100 second.
Newton's cradle is a good example of elastic transfer of energy

All the best
Kirk

[Kirk]

Bessler said about childreen going from pillar to pillar (xthing like that). May be this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQK_xMg8Wow
If the weights don't have any contact with the wheel during the lift-up travel, Kirk could be right.

That is correct, they free flight to the top.

[greendoor]

The weights could be tethered inside the wheel (maybe), but I too see them as flying upwards after an impact.

Maybe the stampbox is a marketing gimmick - but it's a flagrant waste of power output if that's all it is. I wonder if it was disconnected when demonstrating the weight lifting (which seemed to be a little underwhelming to some viewers)? Maybe it's an audible distraction - to cover up what is really going on? I'm tending to think it's part of the engine though - if only in a timing/gating mechanism ...

If you use an electrical analog the lever is a transformer.
Current is mass and voltage is velocity. Higher voltage (velocity) is more desirable as expressed by 1/2 mv2.

A gearset is a rotary lever. The analogy to an electrical transformer is a very good one. Most readers might be put off by this - because levers, gears & transformers can all 'transform' power/energy but they never exceed unity gain, and in fact have losses. Higher voltage at lower current isn't necessarily better than lower voltage at higher current - it depends on what you are doing with it. 1 kiloWatt is still 1 kiloWatt, however you distribute it.

[ovyyus]

Eyewitnesses report the wheel operating with no attached load and also with optionally attached loads: box or bricks, water screw, stampers.

How can stampers be part of the operating principle when they were demonstrated as optional?

[greendoor]

Good point - if a credible eyewitness saw the wheel run without the stampers connected, then obviously it can't be a part of the drive mechanism. How sure can we be of that?

I'm actually more interested in the external pendulums - they don't appear to be a demonstration of load, and they are visible in most pictures. They would have a sizable weight to them - especially if that double horned mass at the bottom is made of lead. Most operating principles I see discussed here don't feature anything like this, but I think they may be essential. And I still think that somewhere in the mechanism Impact or Collision is involved. If not in the Stamper box, then elsewhere.

[ovyyus]

The pendulums were optionally applied, as were the stampers. Try searching the forum, this pendulum subject has been covered serveral times.

[gravitas]

"4 pounds accelerated for a quarter second has the equivalent momentum of 1 pound for a second."

Thanks for the post Kirk.

Indeed some diagrams would help, but a comment:

You seem to indicate that the smaller weight is propelled upwards by the momentum yielded by the larger weight.

Yet Bessler himself articulated his challenge in these terms:

" A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!

Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall.

If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself."

( Ref. John Collins )

In other words, Bessler seems to suggest that it is the HEAVY weight that flies upwards as a result of the movement of the SMALLER one...

Thoughts?

Gravitas