Kinetics

[pequaide]

A one kilogram mass at 44.145 meters above the ground has an energy content of 433.0 (44.145 m * 9.81 newtons) joules. It takes 3 seconds to reach the ground in freefall. This is the application of 9.81 newtons of force (9.81 newtons per kilogram) for 3 second. Force times time is 3 sec * 9.81 newtons = 29.43

A twenty kilogram object 2.207 meters above the ground has 433.0 (9.81 N/kg * 20 kg * 2.207 m) joules of energy. It takes .67078 seconds to reach the ground in freefall. This is the application of 196.2 (9.81 * 20) newtons of force for .67078 second. Force times time is 196.2 * .67078 = 131.6

As you see energy is not a function of time. There is not a one to one relationship between the quantity of energy and the quantity of time over which a force acts. 433/433 does not equal 29.43 / 131.6. Energy is a function of distance 9.81 N * 44.145 m = 433 joules = 196.2 N * 2.207 m.

The final velocity for the one kilogram is 29.43 m/sec for a final energy of 433 joules (1/2 * 20 kg * 29.43²) and a final momentum of 29.43.

The final velocity of the 20 kilograms is 6.58 m/sec for a final energy of 433 joules (1/2 * 20 kg *6.58 m/sec * 6.58) and a final momentum of 131.6.

There is a one to one relationship between the momentum of the two events and the force times time relationship of the two events. The momentum differences are 29.43 / 131.6 and the force times time relationship is 29.43 / 131.6. Momentum is therefore a function of time and energy is not a function of time.

The point is this: transfer the momentum of the 20 kilograms (131.6) to the one kilogram and it will rise 883 meters. This is an energy increase to (8659.3 / 433) 2,000%.

Here is another way to look at it. Wrap the circumference of a vertically mounted 19 kilogram rim mass wheel with 44.145 meters of string. Then place one kilogram on the end of the string and let it accelerate the wheel until the mass comes to the end of the string. The acceleration will be .4905 m/sec/sec (9.81 / 20) and it will take 13.416 sec. to reach the ground d = ½ at². The final velocity will be 6.58 m/sec for 433 joules of energy. The same one kilogram mass freefalling for 3 seconds will give you the same energy. This is the same force (9.81 N) for the same distance (44.145 m) resulting in the same energy (433 joules), but it is a markedly different quantities of time 3 sec / 13.416 sec.

Conversely: F = ma. The (a) is change in velocity over change in time. Therefore F = m * v / t; or Ft = mv. And (9.81 N * 3 sec) / (9.81 * 13.416) = 29.43 m/sec * 1 kg / 6.58 m/sec * 20 kg

[Ian G]

I posted the above because it seems to me to be Besslers biggest clue about his wheel

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Ian,

I believe the weight in the cloth was one of a number of balanced weights and not a working weight, just one of the fly wheel weights, and was shown to throw people off of the cent.

Sorry for taking your thread off track,

I will take my reply to Pequaide to his thread.

with thanks Trevor

Edit, Ian I replied to Pequaide here because it was not completely off topic.

[pequaide]

My guess is that Bessler discovered that the momentum of a flywheel could be transferred to the pendulum of a clockwork, and in the process energy was made. The false Law of Conservation of Energy was not yet around to hamper his thinking. But there were a lot of “can’t be done-s� back there too.

[greendoor]

Thanks Pequaide - that's a very intriguing guess ... you've got me thinking about a version of the anvil & hammers toy being used as the mechanism to apply an impulse to a swinging pendulum ...

If we imagine pairs of swinging pendulum weights at 180 degrees, a heavy flywheel mass (perhaps the whole Bessler wheel itself) could transfer some of it's momentum to each pendulum in turn by a carefully synchronized impact ... this could cause an Energy increase, giving the pendula the velocity and height advantage necessary to more than reset ...

This would mean that the wheel as a whole would be constantly accelerating and decelerating - which I believe to be necessary in order to extract energy from gravity...

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Pequaide,

First and foremost, Pequaide you have done a fantastic job.

Pequaide, I believe that no energy is made only converted, if you could forget the idea that you are making energy and find where it is coming from them we could use it, at the minute your experiment cannot be made to reset as most people have said.

It would be very interesting to see the same calculations on a pendulum, the work done for and against gravity as I believe the results would be equally as impressive, Edit, if not the same. using the primary weight only fixed to the wheel as a pendulum.

Your above post maybe the wrong way round but I believe the fly wheel and a pendulum combination could be a very good prime mover for weight shift designs, as just a little out of balance could keep the system running, some times a believe we get to greedy with or design instead of getting a little bit to start with and then building on it.

General question, do all Besslers wheels have pendulums?

Ian thanks for posting this thread.

Pequaide, thanks for getting me interested in your work.

Regards Trevor

Edit, greendoor most be quicker to the submit button. also I do not have a problem with the energy laws just as long as gravity is seen as a input.

Edit again, add, if not the same. using the primary weight only fixed to the wheel as a pendulum.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Greendoor,

Greendoor Wrote.

This would mean that the wheel as a whole would be constantly accelerating and decelerating - which I believe to be necessary in order to extract energy from gravity...

That is one of the reasons we use flywheels so you get a steady output. Edit, not forgeting ratcht driven flywheels.

Regards Trevor

[Reticon]

ah, this is the same silly thing again, like deja vu all over again. Momentum is a form of PE. Just the same as when you lift a mass and hold it. It has potential, due to gravity, of accelerating, returning the energy used to lift it into whatever it impacts, pulls, or pushes. With momentum a mass is storing energy that it will return to anything it is used to push, pull or impact upon being forced to stop or slow. So don't be fooled in to thinking that removing the momentum from something equates to free energy. It most certainly does not, not any more than collecting energy from a falling mass. Energy was used to accelerate the mass that has the momentum and that energy is all you will get in return. This makes a lot of paper drawings look good when they aren't. A piece of paper fails to represent the motion states of the masses in the system. Moving mass to a position of greater torque at the expense of it's pro-rotation momentum will look great on paper, but still do nothing for you.

I'm suspicious that Bessler, if he wasn't a conman, may have found a way to steal momentum from the earth's rotation. This would NOT be free energy either & if there is a method of combining gravity, rotation vectors, and the earth's rotation to spin a wheel it is best left undiscovered!

As far as your math: "This is the application of 196.2 (9.81 * 20) newtons of force for .67078 second." I think you've applied this formula incorrectly. Gravity constant * the height represents the amount of energy that will be hammered into the earth at the end of the trip, not how much energy is applied for the duration of the trip. That IS the gravity CONSTANT & that is acceleration only. Apples and oranges. Gravity is an acceleration ONLY, energy can be extracted from the mass that is caused to move by this acceleration but with respect to current laws acceleration should not be thought of as "energy". If we redefine things but use the same formulas that assumed a different definition, we can make them say anything at all. So while your PE calculation may be correct, your conclusion really seems wrong to me. I don't see any excesses. Your logic seems to say that you'd be able to cause a mass to bounce higher and higher on a trampoline assuming you split it and combined it at different points. I don't see that, but would love to. I'd also like to find a cheap way to turn lead to gold. ;-)

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Reticon,

I you are correct according to my experiments, I built ten symmetric slots on a wheel with ten weights in the slots, this was meant to be a velocity shunt drive to hammer the wheel around. The result is this, as the weights fell on the descending side they fell in the slot until they collided with the end of the slot, but as the weights fell they where doing no work on the wheel, but the weights on the ascending side where applying good leverage in a negative way so the impact was lost to the leverage, thus it banged to a stop, I would put leverage against velocity any day, aseptically if the L2 distance travelled is free from gravity, and are reset with a counterbalance wheel lift.

In answer to your last part, become a scrap metal merchant: )

Regards Trevor