Bessler's (4th) Kassel wheel Archimedes screw pump calculations

[daxwc]

No that was a fur ball.

[eccentrically1]

Well, it was an attempt at humor: John's phrasing "Ralph, Mind if I throw a little math at you?"
Ralph? Throw a little?

[john]

John, the least you could do is get the Kassel wheel dimensions correct before trying to 'simplify' anything. It was 12 feet diameter x 18 inches thick.

On second thoughts, why not start your own topic to explore your own pet theory rather than cluttering this topic with rambling nonsense.

I have, Thank You. But it does seem you miss the basic premise behind engineering.

John

[john]

john,

For some unknown reason you have addressed the above follow up of Jim's quote to me!

I am not into the mathematics of water nor gaining any applied torque from it. I am a firm objective believer that water seeks its own level.

Therefore you cannot use water to pump water gaining any additional torque without a reduction or increase of ambient pressure on one side of the wheel. The only device I am aware of that utilizes velocity of water for a gain in elevation is a 'Ram Pump'

If I have misinterpreted your meaning, please acknowledge.

Ralph

Ralph,
The water in the wheel should not be confused with water being pumped by the wheel.
As Oyvus mentioned, the wheel being discussed is 50% wider and 1 foot more in diameter than the one I was referencing. By using 10 pounds as an example. The wheel I mentioned would have developed 55 foot pouns of toque.
By increasing the width which also increases the mass, then increasing the diameter, it would be 15 pounds at 6 feet or 90 foot pounds of torque.
That would be a signifigant power increase.
As for my pet theory, I will keep it in the thread I have for it. Just thought I would mention how engineering by a standard allows for comparison of the potential to generate torque and being able to compare it to the work being performed.
John

[ovyyus]

Dear John, your current pet theory might require water inside your wheel, but there appears no evidence to support the notion that there was water inside Bessler's wheel. Of course that is besides the point, this topic is a discussion and analysis of the water inside Bessler's water screw pump.

But it does seem you miss the basic premise behind engineering.

It does seem you might be insane. One of us is probably right.

[rlortie]

Well, it was an attempt at humor: John's phrasing "Ralph, Mind if I throw a little math at you?"
Ralph? Throw a little?

Whether it be a little math or a fur ball, I will go with the latter! :-)

Any one and everyone who has read any of my posts going back over five years should know by now that; "I do not do math on this forum"
Not only do I have a phobia for it, I find it useless and the time spent discussing it is better spent doing hands on research'

IMO, math for a gravity wheel is not going to solve the puzzle, if it would we would not still be looking! It would have been solved by the mathematicians of Bessler's time and certainly no later than the 'hay days' of Leonhard Euler, considered to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century, and one of the greatest of all time.

After publishing his works on angular momentum and velocity, he was asked if he thought perpetual motion was possible, alleged sources say that he would not deny or dismiss the possibility.

Thanks for the 'fur ball' approach, they are elusive as [Acrobats and shadow-boxers swift and nimble as the wind.] (edited for brevity)

Ralph

[rlortie]

John,

It is good that you have your own thread!

Introducing new ideas is best accomplished by starting your own topic.

All Ideas I am sure, are welcome here, but please do not confuse an ongoing thread by diversifying the subject matter.

Introducing the concept of a water powered wheel is fine as long as it is in its proper place.

This thread regarding the Archimedes screw pump is for pumping water, not a water/gravity powered machine.

Ralph

[eccentrically1]

Every time about 350.000 liters (92,000 gallons) of water are needed and visitors can follow the water's way starting

...
your average flow rate estimate is about 7 litres per screw revolution. That's 70 litres per minute

70 liters is 18.492 gallons per minute
so 92k/18.492 = 4975.1243 minutes
4975.1243/60 = 82 hours = 3.45 days
with one wheel
not bad, one cascade about every 3 days using the upper estimate 8.5 l.

with 10 wheels
92k/180.492=509.71788 minutes
/60=8.495298 hours

using the upper estimate rounds to about 230 gallons a minute.
92k/230~400 minutes
/60=6.6... hours
so 10 optimum (PM) wheels would produce about 24/6.6 = 3.6 cascades a day.

scaled up, maybe 8 wheels could do 4 a day.

my math is probably wrong, but the point is:
the only cascade in the world powered by a PM wheel.
karl passed on it.
was it really PM?
only in the sense of a mechanism that is pumping some form of unseen energy. did karl miss that part of it when describing the mechanism? yea or nay?
what energy transformations that could have been used are invisible?

[jim_mich]

The Kassel cascade flows downward a height of about 356 feet. The pump calculations are for pumping about 4 foot. Thus you need to increase the power or time by a factor of about 90.

so 10 optimum (PM) wheels would produce about 24/6.6 = 3.6 cascades a day.

6.6 hr × 90 ÷ 24 = 24.75 days between each cascade time.

Or instead of 10 wheel, you could have 900 wheels pumping water.

Obviously you are no engineer. Your mistake was in not understanding that each increase of height also requires an increase of energy. You cannot just take the volume of Bessler's demonstration screw that pumped water up about 4 feet and then increase it to the desired volume of the cascade. Your calculations would lift the desired amount of water upward by 4 feet, but never upward the 356 feet of the Kassel cascade.

As I've maintained, Bessler's wheel was much stronger than Bill's wimpy 20 to 40 watts, but it was nowhere near up to the task of recirculating the water for the cascade. Obviously Karl solved the problem by piping water in from some remote higher up location, as far as I can tell from reading websites.

So I still maintain that Karl did not buy Bessler's wheel because it was not strong enough.

my math is probably wrong, but the point is:
the only cascade in the world powered by a PM wheel.
karl passed on it.
was it really PM?
only in the sense of a mechanism that is pumping some form of unseen energy. did karl miss that part of it when describing the mechanism? yea or nay?

Karl knew it was PM. Karl also recognized it was not strong enough for his application. So he passed on it. Plain and simple.

[eccentrically1]

Your mistake was in not understanding that each increase of height also requires an increase of energy.

whoops.
i'm sorry jim. i'm a musician by profession.
so 10 wheels would produce 1 cascade every 24 days. that is not good.
even 1 every 12 days would be lackluster.

but, i'd like to reiterate the wow factor, not the weakness of the wheel or of my calculations.

if it was really PM, bessler and karl agreed to allow it to wither and die.
wow. what a story, but what is wrong with this picture?

real pm. that means anything would be capable of creating its own energy. this would be, in a sense, like reversing entropy, the arrow of time, going into the past. bill and i can't seem to get this point across to anybody. how could two people allow the impossible wheel to die?
if you discovered a fountain of youth that slowed time, would you pass on a drink?
think of your own theory. are you going to let it die?
we need to figure out why they let it go.

[justsomeone]

Bessler did not plan on dying the day he did. He was still working on his wheel literature up till his death.

Karl may have just been waiting for Bessler to sell his wheel so he could build one without paying a king's ransom.

Did Karl ever tell Bessler that he would buy his wheel if it was true P.M. ?

[John Collins]

No jso, I don't think Karl did say that to Bessler, and anyway he died long before Bessler did, so he couldn't have waited.

JC

[jim_mich]

we need to figure out why they let it go.

They didn't "let it go". Bessler was screwed by idiot skeptics that were so absolutely darn sure that perpetual motion was impossible, that they proclaimed loud and clear that Bessler must be a fraud. And Bessler, knowing that he had a true PM machine, remained steadfast is demanding a large price for his invention. And so a sale never materialized.

And that is the story. Did Bessler really invent an ectropy wheel? Or was he one of the greatest hoaxes in history?

My opinion is that he built an ectropy wheel capable of doing to motion what a Maxwell Demon would do with heat.

Maxwell's Demon would take existing motion of gas molecules and sort them faster and slower. Bessler's ectropy wheel would take existing motion of weight and sort motion into faster and slower moving mass. In either case the total motion is not increased. But also in each case the usable harnessable motion increases. The molecule pressure difference can push one against the other to produce usable force. The inertial momentum motion of weights can act one against the other to cause usable force. In either case the environment replenishes the energy.

But of course this sounds like fairy dust, bunny smoke, or Hogwarts Harry Potter magic. Why would anyone believe that such magic could be done? Why would anyone from 300 years ago believe that a box might talk, or that a box might contain the music of a whole orchestra and choir, or that it might display moving colored pictures, or that one might press keys on a box on one side of the Earth and people on the other side could read what you pressed?

And since the experts said Bessler's wheel was a fraud, giving the reasons that perpetual motion is impossible, and since even the great Prince Karl could not find a believer to pay the price, the wheel knowledge died first with Karl, and then with Bessler.

Of course I could be wrong. Obviously this is just my opinion.

[eccentrically1]

Bessler's ectropy wheel would take existing motion of weight and sort motion into faster and slower moving mass. In either case the total motion is not increased. But also in each case the usable harnessable motion increases.

i don't understand your logic there.
the total motion doesn't increase, but a part of the total motion does.
how can a part of something increase without increasing the total of the same something?

The molecule pressure difference can push one against the other to produce usable force.

molecule pressure difference? in a fluid?

The inertial momentum motion of weights can act one against the other to cause usable force.

i can't argue with that.

In either case the environment replenishes the energy.

that's what i keep saying. it was an environmentally replenished machine.
i guess we just differ on the details of how the energy is replenished by the environment.










[/quote]

[jim_mich]

the total motion doesn't increase, but a part of the total motion does.
how can a part of something increase without increasing the total of the same something?

Yes, the total motion doesn't change. A portion increases. A portion decreases.

A Maxwell's demon swaps a faster molecule with a slower molecule. The rest remains unchanged. The total energy of the whole system remains unchanged during the first phase. Once you have a speed difference (molecules or weights) then energy becomes usable. The ectropy of the system is increased.

that's what i keep saying. it was an environmentally replenished machine.
i guess we just differ on the details of how the energy is replenished by the environment.

It depends upon how you define perpetual motion and how you define environment.

If you define the environment as 'everything', then the environment supplies ALL energy.

If you define environment as only tangible things such as atmospheric pressures, environmental heat, solar radiation, etc. then the definition of environment does not include 'everything'. Gravity is an environmental force. Would a gravity wheel be an environmental engine? Would that make it NOT perpetual motion? What about inertia and momentum? Would a motion wheel be an environmental engine? Would that make it NOT perpetual motion?

I consider PM to be any means capable of producing continuous usable forceful motion, for an indefinite period of time, without any tangible input of energy. Tangible is anything that can be blocked or shielded from entering an enclosure. Heat, air, mechanical force, light, electromagnetic radiation can all be blocked. Gravity, inertia, and momentum are normal characteristics of mass already inside the enclosure. They cannot be blocked or shielded. Any PM wheel rotated by gravity, inertia, and/or momentum for an indefinite time would not be an environmental engine, as far as I'm concerned. They would be perpetual motion.