It's made in "Flash"....but if you want a copy to play with, I can export it to several other formats...
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
I missed this topic while I was on vacation last year. Having now just read it I noticed that no one mentioned Bessler’s wheel powered wagon:
“If Wagner possessed a machine such as mine, people would have greatly admired it, but his "Waggoner's Wheel" wasn't worth going to see.
Mine would have travelled a thousand miles before his left the town!� AP 328 waggoner (noun) a person who drives a wagon
“When he was 31 he dreamed to petition to gain the exclusive rights to a gravity-powered wagon.� - Menaria (orffyre.tripod.com)
“There's always the danger that a surreptitious shove would knock it out of balance and bring it grinding to a halt." AP 293
funwithgravity2 wrote:
“A nudge might cause it to stop, what would a bumpy old road do?�
When Bessler invented the first working PM device in 1711, he took a break to visit mines in the Erz Mountains(AP 269) to see how much power his first exhibited machine (Gera 1712) should demonstrate.
Thomas Newcomen who invented the atmospheric steam engine exhibited its power by draining water from a mine.
I could not find on Google when ore cars were first used in mines in Europe. If they were used at the time then why didn’t Bessler exhibit an ore car wagon on rails on a short track?
Why would Bessler mention a PM powered freight wagon to use between towns and not exhibit one?
Somewhere on the forum I read about the vibration of Bessler’s wheels and a witness saw that the brackets holding the post to the floor was loose and could be seen moving up and down with the wheel turning.
Does someone know what topic that was? I would like to quote the source.
Did all of Bessler’s exhibited wheels have the axle in floor to ceiling beams?
Was this because of the vibration from the running machine was so severe it required a solid mount?
Regarding a wagon on a road or an orecar in a mine would this vibration hinder the operation of the vehicle?
Is this why all exhibited wheels were done inside a building with stout support beams?
A PM powered wagon could have a ballast to damp the vibration and it could be locked inside a secure building at night.
A clutch or wagon wheel brakes could be used for control and a steering mechanism would not be that hard to design.
Imagine exhibiting a gravity powered wagon and giving rides up and down the lane. Much more impressive than lifting loads, running a stamping machine or pumping water.
If the vibration was too severe to be controlled in a wagon then this is a clue of the mechanism.
This is puzzling because Bessler wrote:
"If God allowed me a long enough life I could make my wheel go really slowly, with a gentle rhythm, and it would still be able to raise even greater weights!� AP 343
A gentle rhythm means little vibration. Is he saying here that the faster the rpm the more vibration the machine has but slowing down the speed the vibration is small?
Would making the weights wider produce more torque and power?
Did Bessler deliberately make his first two exhibited wheels narrow so no one could say a person or animal was inside? Could a person or animal inside the wheel run that fast?
The wheel turning at 50 rpm given its diameter, if that was a wheel on a wagon, can one of you good in math figure out how much would be the ground speed in miles/km per hour?
How fast down the lane would his wagon move?
-Rocky
AP – Apologia Poetica (Formal Poetic Defense), Bessler, Germany 1716, John Collins/translated by Mike Senior 2005
As it was already discussed in overunity.com, together with proving that CoE can be violated in the case of a magnetic propulsor, the most amazing thing about the cycloid from a physical point of view is the overlooked violation of CoE in this case too.
Amazingly, all the focus regarding the cycloid when discussing what path would ensure the shortest travel between two points placed at different levels has been directed towards the role it plays in establishing variational calculus, the far-reaching physical consequences being ignored.
It is obvious, however, that if a ball of mass m can reach sooner point B lying below the staring point A along the longer, cycloid, path than along the shorter straight path between A and B then the average kinetic energy in the former case is greater than the average kinetic energy in the latter because the average velocity in the former case is obviously greater than the average velocity in the latter case. Thus, one and the same potential energy gives rise, converts into two different values of the average kinetic energy. This is in stark contradiction with CoE which requires a given amount of potential energy to correspond only equivalently to a given amount of average kinetic energy.
To preempt unnecessary arguments one should note that the physics gives a very clear and precise definition of what kinetic energy is -- kinetic energy of a body is only a function of the mass m, and velocity v and has nothing to do with whether or not a transfer of that energy has occurred, whether or not that energy has been or has not been converted into work, whether or not there is collision and so on and so forth.
It is amazing that when deriving the solution to the brachistochrone problem (which yields the cycloid as the trajectory providing the shortest travel between two points placed at different levels) that derivation is based on local obeying of CoE when considering the velocity along the elementary arcs ds. That, however, doesn't help in the overall outcome where, as was noted above, CoE is disobeyed.
This is the second clear proof for the violation of CoE. As mentioned, the first proof was when analyzing the magnetic propulsor and where it was found out that constructions can exist which can ensure spontaneous displacement of a body under the action of a conservative force which is nothin else but obtaining of "energy from nothing", that is, obtaining energy from no pre-existing energy source. Unfortunately, so far it is only possible to obtain such energy discontinuously. Continuous production of "energy from nothing" is still to be achieved despite claims by the likes of Bob Kostoff and Sjack Abeling to have already created devices for its production. We need that confirmed by third parties, which still hasn't been done, to accept it as a real demonstration of the phenomenon.
Rocky you quoted some text written by Menaria (orffyre.tripod.com).
I don't know where he gets so much information from but he refers to several Indian mystics in his web pages and although I don't know enough about their abilities in such a field to comment authoritively, it seems to me that we should take their information with a little scepticism if only because it is purely subjective and no documentation can be found to support it.
“If Wagner possessed a machine such as mine, people would have greatly admired it, but his "Waggoner's Wheel" wasn't worth going to see.
Mine would have travelled a thousand miles before his left the town!� AP 328
This is another Bessler play on words joke - the German name Wagner means wainwright or wagon-builder.
Also, I agree with John that Menaria is not a reliable source of information. Of course there's no reason why a Bessler wheel couldn't be put to use to power a vehicle however.
Speaking of an axle rolling to another pillar post (at Mersenne) via a track... if the axle had a REGULAR wheel placed on each end (with the Perpetual wheel in the center), then the thing would have rolled on a track quite easily in a more "car-like" manner. However, failure to not use a track would still have resulted in a bumpy ride (though two wheels are more stable than one).
I'm interested in the miles/hour a 50 rpm wheel would have done (as I'm unsure of the dimensions).
BTW, the wheel at Gersham(sp?) was demonstrated outside to the best of my recollection... so it must have not been SOO vibrationally bumpy. It probably wasn't even bolted to the ground if I were to guess... but then again, it was smaller and a one-way wheel.
I agree with a previous poster... Besser did invent a wagon and a fire-engine and a ship did he not? I'm sure he didn't actually build the ship... so perhaps they were all just conceptual designs.
