Forget it

[eccentrically1]

If you had one, then yes.

But perpetual motion is defined as being something that is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to have a perpetual motion wheel. If you call it by the name of "perpetual motion" and it works, then it no longer fits the definition of of "perpetual motion". Catch 22. You cannot win.

you missed the point, again.

[jim_mich]

you missed the point, again.

I got your point.

But again, you missed my point.

[daxwc]

ahhh..... just forget it

[ovyyus]

Jim, I thought my question to you was simple and straightforward and yet YOUR answer is evasive and irrelevant. I didn't ask about fluid. I expect YOUR reluctance to answer is because YOUR calculations show a purely mechanical embodiment of YOUR 'motion wheel' indicates that a 12 foot wheel optimised for maximum power could be many times the output of Bessler's very weak demonstration model. I can see how that might undermine YOUR speculation about why Karl didn't employ the technology. My car is blue.

[eccentrically1]

you missed the point, again.

I got your point.

But again, you missed my point.

no , you didn't get it.
the point is, if he had

an OOB wheel , driven by gravity, and rotates non stop till the parts where out, may I call it a perpetual motion wheel?

a wheel like that.
he doesn't have a wheel like that.
and your point is?

[jim_mich]

I expect YOUR reluctance to answer is because YOUR calculations show a purely mechanical embodiment of YOUR 'motion wheel' indicates that a 12 foot wheel optimised for maximum power could be many times the output of Bessler's very weak demonstration model.

Therein lies the problem ... optimized ... a 12 foot wheel using 16 four pound weights will produce about 140 to 160 Watts when rotating at 26 RPM. So we optimize... make the wheel thicker, make the weights heavier, use more weights, stack the wheels end to ends. Where do we stop with this optimizing? A wooden wheel structure like Bessler's could not handle much more weight or speed. The forces caused by the motions of the weights would have torn it apart. So we optimize by making an iron wheel that could run faster and produced a greater output. And then a number of these stronger faster wheels could have been ganged together. Eventually you might have 40 to 50 HP to run a giant cascade. But at what cost? Each wheel might require as much iron as a steam engine. And the whole assembly of wheels would be much bigger than a steam engines.

The bottom line was that a steam engine was smaller and cheaper to build. And enough of them had been built so their output was known. Bessler's wheel was not proven in use yet. So it had a certain amount of uncertainty.

[ovyyus]

I like cheese. My other car is black. I saw a bird.

[jim_mich]

You guys from the other side of the Earth talk funny. I understand your words, but have trouble understanding your meaning.

[ovyyus]

No, you're on the other side of the Earth. It's about to rain. My cat meowed.

[jim_mich]

If we're both on the other side, then we must be on the same side, and one of us must be lost.

[rlortie]

The cascade does not run continuous and water is stored in the base or foundation of the statue "Hercules"

For the first time the water features took place on 3 June in 1714. Today during the summer (from May until October every Wednesday and Sunday afternoon) visitors can attend this event. Additionally, every first Saturday of the months of June, July, August and September this event takes place during the evening with lights of different colors illuminating the water, the fountain and the different monuments. Every time about 350.000 liters (92,000 gallons) of water are needed and visitors can follow the water's way starting from the Hercules monument and ending at the big lake of the castle Wilhelmshöhe. The water runs down the cascades, the Steinhöfer's waterfall, the devil's bridge, until it tumbles down the aqueduct before finally arriving at the lake of the castle where a fountain of about 50 meters ends the spectacle. This whole system relies on natural pressure from reservoirs and underground pipes whose locks are opened manually. This system has been in place for more than 300 years.

For more information, visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_m ... 8Kassel%29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLAgfY__pG8

[rlortie]

If we're both on the other side, then we must be on the same side, and one of us must be lost.

Goody! Something new and worthwhile to debate!
Let the cat out of the bag so it can see the bird if its going to rain!

But perpetual motion is defined as being something that is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to have a perpetual motion wheel. If you call it by the name of "perpetual motion" and it works, then it no longer fits the definition of of "perpetual motion". Catch 22. You cannot win.

I am sure happy to hear that perpetual motion is only "DEFINED", it gives us the opportunity to delineate the whole issue. Only a "Can"t" person would call it impossible.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Come on now Bill,

You pay heed to what Jim tells you, he has me convinced by his writings that he was there and not only saw but experienced the whole thing.

Therein lies the problem ... optimized ... a 12 foot wheel using 16 four pound weights will produce about 140 to 160 Watts when rotating at 26 RPM. So we optimize... make the wheel thicker, make the weights heavier, use more weights, stack the wheels end to ends. Where do we stop with this optimizing? A wooden wheel structure like Bessler's could not handle much more weight or speed. The forces caused by the motions of the weights would have torn it apart. So we optimize by making an iron wheel that could run faster and produced a greater output. And then a number of these stronger faster wheels could have been ganged together. Eventually you might have 40 to 50 HP to run a giant cascade. But at what cost? Each wheel might require as much iron as a steam engine. And the whole assembly of wheels would be much bigger than a steam engines.

The bottom line was that a steam engine was smaller and cheaper to build. And enough of them had been built so their output was known. Bessler's wheel was not proven in use yet. So it had a certain amount of uncertainty.

This is better reading than found in a Tom Clancy or Clive Cussler novel, you can take it to the bank!

Jim, If you have health problems that are inhibiting your research, why the hell don't you speak out and say so.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Ralph, I got suckered into this mugs game many moons ago. Back in the newbie days I was green enough to think there must be at least one actual working free energy device out there somewhere in all those claims. Nope, I was wrong. Its all hogwash. Countless claims of success, from outright fraudsters stealing your money and time to mad drunk true believers on a sure fire winner, all bunk up to this point in time. Nothing's changed except me. I got harder to impress :D

[rlortie]

Bill,

I too have been around for a while, got interested in magnets in 1958, and like a dog chasing its tail I have been in pursuit ever since.

I do not remember how many moons have gone by since I first crossed paths with you. I know that it was years before ever learning of your present web site and the birth of this forum. In fact if IIRC it was before Bill Gates introduced Windows 3.1.

The works of such names as: Depalma, Tarawa, Newman, Lee, Muller, minoto, and others remain archieved in three ring binders including the early days of Keely.

I refuse to give up, although I find myself in disdain with a lot of what is posted on this forum, I am a believer that we will eventually find the alleged impossible.

As for Jim_Mich and his motion wheel, he has made it perfectly clear (twice) since September 12, of this year that he is pursuing the use of fluid in his design. Why he insists on debating over weights and levers eludes me, other than an attempt to cover his real intent. But sorry, it is to late to worry about that.

Ralph