Power output

[ovyyus]

For me this is the most important aspect of Bessler's discovery since it affects ideas about so called "conservative" fields in general, in particular the conservative magnetic field.

Frank, with zero knowledge about what operated inside of Bessler's wheel you're now ready to make conclusions about how it relates to conservative magnetic fields!? That's putting the cart well before the horse.

There goes science right out the window :D

[Grimer]

The horse "pulls" the cart by pushing on its collar - so in a sense the cart is before the horse.

[AB Hammer]

Grimmer

Are we arguing front wheel or rear wheel drive? LOL

[nicbordeaux]

Frank's idea about storing jerks in a tension rod (sorry for inappropriate wording) is brilliant. But unless I missed something, the "jerk" is part of the energy of the system, in a "loss" form. As 1 +1 don't make 3, there is in a gravity driven wheel only the energy imarted by the driver or "OB" weight, which at best is one full turn. So if a OB wheel does 90% of a turn of it's own accord, the jerk has to be 10%. Just to achieve reset. As there is friction, the jerk isn't 10 %.

[nicbordeaux]

Nic - for such a smart guy, your comments seem a lot like the people in Edison's day who couldn't see the usefulness of the electric light bulb. Or the guy from IBM who though the world might one day have a need for a dozen computers, max. Or the many record labels who didn't sign The Beatles ...

Hey Greendoor, what's with calling me a smart guy, I didn't insult you :) Everybody goes about it in his own way, but if I can "see" that a concept is going to be limited, not interested. If you are attempting to beat astronomical odds on your own, you go for the big prize. A device which doesn't have the possibility of being massively scaled up weightwise in the drive compartment (defnitely the increase in power must be not linear to size), and isn't as as precisely operated as a i.c. engine valve via push rods, belts or else, well, it just ain't worth contemplating and wasting time on. If you have the mechanical control/timing, you can worry about the revs later.

Edit : the guys who didn't sign the Beatles weren't intereted in starting the "Boy's Band" trend. Thank the Beatles for the Spice Girls. And the Beach Boy's too, another boy's band just like the beatles, except like Muddy Waters, they managed to pull the scam of playing endless variations of the same song.

[Grimer]

Frank's idea about storing jerks in a tension rod (sorry for inappropriate wording) is brilliant. But unless I missed something, the "jerk" is part of the energy of the system, in a "loss" form. As 1 +1 don't make 3, there is in a gravity driven wheel only the energy imarted by the driver or "OB" weight, which at best is one full turn. So if a OB wheel does 90% of a turn of it's own accord, the jerk has to be 10%. Just to achieve reset. As there is friction, the jerk isn't 10 %.

Jerk isn't lost if you capture it with a ratchet/free-wheel device.

Think of it as an overshoot. If you don't capture it then the system will return to its equilibrium point and the overshoot energy will be lost. If you go carefully through my explanations in the various threads I feel sure you will understand.

[Grimer]

To make my previous post even clearer, consider the above figure.

The first diagram shows the unloaded beam.

The second diagram shows shows the deflection of the beam when the load is slowly applied. This deflection of 1 inch, say is stable and unchanging.

The third diagram shows the maximum deflection when the load is applied suddenly. If this deflection is not captured, pinned with a ratchet device say, then the beam will bounce back to the stable 1 inch deflection case.

If it is captured, the weight can be removed and the whole 2 inches deflection energy can be released later.

[Unbalanced]

This concept reminds me of a configuration that I presented to the Gravity Solutions Group a while back that met with a resounding thumbs down. At the time I thought it had merit, now I am not so certain:

What I like about this design:

1) that when the wheel is at rest all of the weights are parked above the center of gravity i.e. all represent potential energy.

2) that the combined PE of all of the weights are utilized to lift a single weight.

3) that gravity combined with the stored energy in the leaf spring is initiating the throw of weight to the top.

4) that this design may readily be modified to utilize the Newton's Cradle principal.

I do not like the fact that there is two wheels and that there is the necessity of gearing.

The action is similar to that exhibited when shuffling a deck of cards.

Referring to my lame illustration below:

The weighted leaf springs are always parked between 9:00 and 11:00

The inner wheel turns 4.5x1 to the outer wheel.

The weighted leaf springs are bowed around the axle or rather a sleeve around the axle.

When pulled off their catch point at 9:00 the weighted leaf spring flies around to 11:00 where it encounters its stop.

As one weighted leaf spring lands at 11:00 it forces the one at 9:00 to come off its stop and fly to 11:00

A weighted leaf spring cannot leave 9:00 without arriving at 11:00

When the wheel is forced to stop the weighted leaf spring at 9:00 is fully bowed and ready for the slightest impetus to get it to release from its catchment and fly to 11:00

What is not shown is the catchment system that would allow a weighted leaf spring to fly unabated except between 9:00 and 11:00 and the gearing mechanism that would drive the inner wheel at 4.5x1 to the outer wheel.

In this manner, the weighted leaf springs are always falling between 11:00 and 9:00 but when they get to 9:00 they fly around, back to 11:00

[Unbalanced]

Another lame illustration of this idea

[nicbordeaux]

Frank, what load ? What form does the load take ? What would be a realworld example of an identical mass loading a beam slowly as opposed to fast ? Unless you are witholding part of the ke, or preventing part of the pe from developping into ke, assuming load is G driven, I don't quite get it.

[Grimer]

Frank, what load ? What form does the load take ? What would be a real-world example of an identical mass loading a beam slowly as opposed to fast ? Unless you are withholding part of the K.E., or preventing part of the P.E. from developing into K.E., assuming load is G driven, I don't quite get it.

At least you are thinking intelligently about it, Nic.

And yes, you have put your finger on it. Slow loading, loading which is not sudden does imply that you are "withholding part of the K.E., or preventing part of the P.E. from developing into K.E."

Full marks for that.

The load is G driven all right but it is also something else, could even be G, undriven, restrained, held back.

You want a real world example. What about this one:

The load is attached to a rope which goes over a pulley. At the end of the rope there is another load less than the load on the beam and free to fall.

Lets say the load on the beam is 10 units and the load at the other end of the rope is 9 units.

Gravity is acting on both loads so the load on the beam is definitely gravity driven. But because of the 9 unit load it is also gravity undriven, gravity restrained.

The net effect is that instead of the acceleration due to gravity being 32 ft/s² for the load on the beam it is now only just over 3 ft/s². You have two acceleration vectors acting on the load. One of G acting downwards and one of (0.9)G acting upwards. The resultant vector is (0.1)G acting downwards.

Of course the attenuation of G does not have arise from Newtonian G itself, as in the above rope and pulley example. In can arise from the energy shunted off into rotation (Ersatz G) or strain energy as in the Keenie2 torque tube or even a Joule paddle using heat as the restraining energy by stirring up water.

[erick]

Bessler's smallest wheel developed around 12 Watts per cubic Metre. That's about 120 x less than your minimum criteria Nick.

Of course, most here might be happy to see 12 Watts per cubic Metre, or even less :D

I'd point out that the Model T's engine had about 22hp as compared to a modern Dodge Viper with 600hp (about 27x as much). While still not a progression of 120x still quite impressive...

Who knows what modern technology and manufacturing could achieve once we understood Bessler's principle...

E

[Bill_Mothershead]

I don 't really imagine there was an old farmer who sat
on a sand dune at Kitty Hawk and yelled out to Wilbur
"It's not going to be practical until it can carry
100 passengers all the way across the Atlantic."

We, here. make pencil sketches and tinker in
the family garage to cobble together a
"proof of principle" model. It seems obvious
that nobody is getting paid to do any of this.
(And you get what you pay for!)

Once the working principle is out in the open,
I can imagine "BIG" industrial giants like GE
(and entire countries like China, Inc.)
allocating thousands of engineers and Billions
of dollars to scale up and advance this technology.

It is not your job, for now, to think of watts or Megawatts.

It is: How does that weight reset itself after one full revolution?

[nicbordeaux]

Erick, I'd point out that the Model T wasn't the first internal combustion engine, by a very long way, and that alternative means of powering vehicles have not been developped because of lack of economic incentive. FWIW in the late 17 th century (yup, that's right, 17 th) Huygens made a piston/cylinder engine that was fuelled by gunpowder. Rather like the OB wheels we PM nutters use, it was pretty erratic and timing issues prevented continuous operation. Generally, Daimler get's credit for the first petrol (gas) modern engine, but this is a very debateable "fact". Between Daimler's first clunker with wick ignition and a 1200hp 1980's tubocharged F1 motor, there is a load more than 120 x. So the argument that Bessler's "secret" if discovered could be refined 120 x by modern tech and engineering is quite plausible.

However, I doubt that if Bessler actually had a secret it will ever be rediscovered, for it look's like there are more than one mechanical means of harnessing gravity, catching it offguard, or using it twice in a setup, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Short of the discovery of a 17 th century edition of the Exchange and Mart magazine with a Bessler advertisment for "Build your own self moving wheel and generate electricity when a means to do so is discovered, plans just 10 thalers, guaranteed to work or money back. For more info SAE to Herr Bessler, c/o Count etc etc" and a copy of said plans, what Bessler actually did, if he was successful, will remain a mystery.

Frank: I wish you guys would lay off calling me "clever" and accusing me of "thinking intelligently", you can get beaten up around this part of the woods for behaving like you are accusing me of. Ok, you have this image of 0.1 G acting downwards on the beam, I don't see in the description where the difference is between that and having just your 0.1 as mass on the beam. Unless of course you are seeking to deform it at a rate which is different from that which occurs in the simple weight at rest on beam case, which you say you are... Then of course, Greendoor is your man, he is the force over time guy around here :) At a guess, you could make a perfectly viable tesbed using a carbon arrow shaft for a beam. No taper, pretty consistent performance for a given brand/dia/wall thickness/length. And a modulus of elasticity which might suit your needs, as well as making the physical results easy to visualize.

Honestly, most of the problem is that we are all so caught up in our own thought processes and theories/builds that we don't/can't afford to get deeply inquisivitive into other peoples ideas/plans/builds, except on a very superficial level without getting a major headache at the expense of our individual pet theories. It would be nice to have the means to round up the more sensible forum members and have them whisked away to some secret location with full engineering shop cpacities, good mechanics, and then bang heads together until such time as brain resources were pooled :)

[greendoor]

I wish you guys would lay off calling me "clever" and accusing me of "thinking intelligently", you can get beaten up around this part of the woods for behaving like you are accusing me of.

He he ... we're just funnin' with you Nicholas. We all's knows ye to be as thick as a short plank, and as stoopid as a goose ...