New idea, this could be far better than before
Moderator: scott
-
Guest
re: New idea, this could be far better than before
well said sek ol boy; that sums it up../
re: New idea, this could be far better than before
sek,
I agree completely with your two cents worth! If someone were...
I'm in an awkward position right now. I have an idea, a concept, a means, a formula, a way to harness gravity. I'm VERY sure it will work. I've proven it on paper using a single formula from my 1935 vintage Machinery's Handbook. There are many physical ways of using this concept. I wanted my first model to be small and simple so anyone anywhere could duplicate it to prove to themselves it really works. A quarter pound of steel, a half pound of water, and under two pounds of plastic plumbing! Total weight was two and a half pounds, not counting the support stand. I carefully planned and calculated its potential output. Then I build it a few days ago. But I made a small mistake. My calculated average continuous output torque was to be .869 oz. which I thought would be enough for proof. The mistake was that I was thinking that it would lift .869 oz. at 12 inches out at the edge. Wrong!! That torque was .869 in./oz. which would only lift a 1/4 inch cube of ice at 12 inches. Not enough to overcome the crude bearing friction and internal friction.
I'm back to the drawing board now to make a bigger model. I'm not sure whether to post my progress here on this board or not? Would I just iritate other posters because I won't reveal 'the secret' just yet? When I'm sure my intelectual property rights are secure, this is one of the first places where I will reveal everything.
Now I have a question. Does anyone here know or have a feel for how much torque Bessler's wheel produced? I can see why Bessler made such big wheels! It takes a lot of mass to poduce a small amount of torque.
I agree completely with your two cents worth! If someone were...
What an awesome thought! And with that comes a resposiblity to make sure the idea survives and isn't lost like Mr. Bessler's was.sek wrote:to only just discover possibly the single biggest and most important worldwide event ever known to the future energy needs and survival of mankind, (phew!)
I'm in an awkward position right now. I have an idea, a concept, a means, a formula, a way to harness gravity. I'm VERY sure it will work. I've proven it on paper using a single formula from my 1935 vintage Machinery's Handbook. There are many physical ways of using this concept. I wanted my first model to be small and simple so anyone anywhere could duplicate it to prove to themselves it really works. A quarter pound of steel, a half pound of water, and under two pounds of plastic plumbing! Total weight was two and a half pounds, not counting the support stand. I carefully planned and calculated its potential output. Then I build it a few days ago. But I made a small mistake. My calculated average continuous output torque was to be .869 oz. which I thought would be enough for proof. The mistake was that I was thinking that it would lift .869 oz. at 12 inches out at the edge. Wrong!! That torque was .869 in./oz. which would only lift a 1/4 inch cube of ice at 12 inches. Not enough to overcome the crude bearing friction and internal friction.
I'm back to the drawing board now to make a bigger model. I'm not sure whether to post my progress here on this board or not? Would I just iritate other posters because I won't reveal 'the secret' just yet? When I'm sure my intelectual property rights are secure, this is one of the first places where I will reveal everything.
Now I have a question. Does anyone here know or have a feel for how much torque Bessler's wheel produced? I can see why Bessler made such big wheels! It takes a lot of mass to poduce a small amount of torque.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
-
Sevich
re: New idea, this could be far better than before
Why would you not post your ideas on this board? Did you not find the answer on this board as stated by your goodself a week ago? And are you sure you will reveal everything just as George has done...Lol!!!I'm not sure whether to post my progress here on this board or not? would I just iritate other posters because I won't reveal 'the secret'just yet? When I'm sure my interlectual property rights are secure, this is one of the first places where I will reveal everything.
re: New idea, this could be far better than before
I agree, I have been in contact with Jim_mich, urging him to tell me at least, if not everyone. He also said that the device could be done in a non-pneumatic way, I don't know why he doesn't try that.
Anyway, based on numbers from http://www.mamut.com/cfconverter, I think it had at least 25 Nm of torque, and Mr. Rustad comes to the conclusion that it had 50 some watts power output. (I think 25 Nm is about 20 lb-ft.)
Anyway, based on numbers from http://www.mamut.com/cfconverter, I think it had at least 25 Nm of torque, and Mr. Rustad comes to the conclusion that it had 50 some watts power output. (I think 25 Nm is about 20 lb-ft.)
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: New idea, this could be far better than before
25 Nm is 18.44 ft.lbf.
That is about 2037 times the output I figure my pneumatic style should produce. And if Bessler's wheel weighed around a ton then both put out about the same energy per pound of machine. I don't remember, does anyone know how much they weighed?
My pneumatic style is sooo simple even a plumbers helper could build one. LOL
That is about 2037 times the output I figure my pneumatic style should produce. And if Bessler's wheel weighed around a ton then both put out about the same energy per pound of machine. I don't remember, does anyone know how much they weighed?
My pneumatic style is sooo simple even a plumbers helper could build one. LOL
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: New idea, this could be far better than before
I posted an analysis of the wheel on my web site, www.free-energy.co.uk, under wheel analysis, authored by some guys I was in contact with a while back. I'm not saying it's spot on but it might provide food for thought.
As to the weight of the twelve foot wheel, I think a ton is way over the correct weight and in my book I originally worked out a weight of around a maximum of 700 pounds but closer to 500 pounds. I reached this weight by calculating how the wheel might have been constructed and of what timber might have been used. I designed a skeletal structure on paper using minimum-sized pieces of wood and then did a comparison of the specific gravities of various timbers and added on the weights and the canvas cloth, to arrive at the final figure. I also took into account the fact that the weights themselves had to be removed prior to translocation of the wheel during tests. This allowed me to estimate the weight two men could just about carry a few paces to the second set of bearings, minus the weights themselves.
John C.
As to the weight of the twelve foot wheel, I think a ton is way over the correct weight and in my book I originally worked out a weight of around a maximum of 700 pounds but closer to 500 pounds. I reached this weight by calculating how the wheel might have been constructed and of what timber might have been used. I designed a skeletal structure on paper using minimum-sized pieces of wood and then did a comparison of the specific gravities of various timbers and added on the weights and the canvas cloth, to arrive at the final figure. I also took into account the fact that the weights themselves had to be removed prior to translocation of the wheel during tests. This allowed me to estimate the weight two men could just about carry a few paces to the second set of bearings, minus the weights themselves.
John C.