Speculations on the witness's evidence

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

Re: re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by rlortie »

FunWithGravity2 wrote:http://besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/435.html

From the old forum, from our wonderful host, Thank you!

Scott
"Therefore, if swinging weights in a wheel were coordinated with one another and with the overall speed of the wheel, then it is possible to envision a scheme where the weights on one side of the wheel were always at their nadirs, and the weights on the other side of the wheel were always at their end points. Therefore, the wheel would always be lighter on one side than the other."


Posted by Scott Ellis (216.87.95.64) on November 13, 2002 at 21:52:33:

Hello All,

There has been some discussion lately about swinging pendulums and moving pivot points. I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss some other related ideas.

One of the few straightforward remarks that Bessler ever made about the wheel was that the weights “gained force from their own swinging.� To me, this sounds a lot like the notion of pumping a swing. Plus, this would be an obvious place to look for a perpetual motion, since the phenomenon of resonance allows a tiny force applied with the right timing to cause a very large motion over time.

And that was from November 13th of 2002, almost 10 years to the date. I have linked that same post several times through the years in many of my ramblings, and never with anymore response than Scott originally received. Although i knew it was on the tips of so many tongues.

It seems the thought is one that has occurred many times before by many people. Such a simple idea, i constantly wonder where people decide to stop and how many different directions a simple idea can diverge into. Ralph and James' "drinking bird" wheel and its odd sympathy, Scott's idea? where did they stop?

It seems everyone has looked here at some point and time, the melodic natural osculation of weights mesmerizing us, if only we could find the correct resonance/sympathy with some force to cause them to find their odd sympathy with the universe.

not relevant, entirely, but sympathy nonetheless

Dave
Thanks Dave for bringing this back up! it is relevant and I must admit that I was not aware of these postings by Scott as it was before my time here.

As for any farther explanation, I need not attempt to make it any more clear. IMO Scott is on spot! However I would not pay attention to the sentence regarding 'moving pivots points'... This is not necessary and to do so puts your right back into the 'height for width' scenario.

I hope that interest and the value of the above posts will now be duly applied and their value not ignored any longer.

Ralph
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by rlortie »

Bessler was also very clear when he stated that his machine would barely run with one cross bar.

I now believe I know its true meaning and will attempt to explain its employment in the near future. it deals with the statement of connectedness principle mentioned in MT # 9

I believe all statements (not clues or AP stanza's) made by Bessler will fall into place in short order.

Ralph
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3303
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by John Collins »

The "gaining force from swinging weights" statement made by Bessler, also applies to my own speculation at http://www.besslerswheel.com/index.html where I use the sport of 'Kiiking' to illustrate my ideas. I have removed from the site one page which I am currently re-working as I recently discovered more information.

JC
Read my blog at http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/

This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google

See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by rlortie »

Gentleman and Ladies,

I have split my screen into two open threads, allowing me to respond to pertinent posts and parts thereof in this thread. Please bear with me as this may prove to be a lengthy post.

Starting with John Collins introductory post I will copy, drag and paste from one window to the other.
There is a tendency, in my opinion, to rely too much on witness statements. I refer, for instance, to the comment by Fischer von Erlach, that suggested he heard "the sound of about eight weights landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned". This statement is worthy of further investigation.
A tendency to rely indeed! A pendulum driven clock sustains itself by a small impetus imparted to the pendulum via the escapement mechanism with each cycle of said pendulum. This impetus maintains the pendulums amplitude at the desired cycle time.

I do not believe that Fischer heard weights falling but rather small children playing with clubs. Small hammer weights falling on the dampener weights, an applied impetus driving the ascending pendulums up and inward. Thus removing the properties of their mass. This replaces the James Kelly exterior mounted basting brush.

These small hammer weights pivoting close to the rim reset themselves once every 180 degrees and are within themselves balanced in relation to the axis of the wheel.
in agreement that the wheel could be started in either direction with ease. The only question of doubt lies in his comment that he could hear the sounds of about eight weights landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned.
If Scott's post from 2002 and my input are on target, then the impetus applied creating the noise would be on the ascending side of the wheel. Similar to Johns theory of 'Kiking' or pumping a swing, the input is applied on the upswing. Same as in a clock!

Now we refer back to the toy page and the second depiction of the hammer toy with twisted clothing holding double pointed picks rather than hammers. To reverse direction one does not need two sets of mechanisms. The latching reset system of the small impetus hammers is simply reversed. To change direction they simply fall on the opposite side of the wheel.
Also we don't know if the internal mechanisms were mirror images for each direction - or not. Did he deaden only the reverse traveling weights or did the one or more of the forwarding ones also need deadening?
This paragraph is now IMO considered irrelevant, there was no need for mirrored images for each direction, and swinging pendulums make very little noise. Again comparing it to a clock the only noise heard is the clicking of the escapement wheel as it applies impetus to the pendulum.
Next we have Wolff's estimate of the Merseberg weights as being about four pounds, did that apply to the weights used in the Kassel wheel? Was that single four pound weight the only one on the end of a lever or whatever it was attached to, or where there more on each one? Do we even know if that four pound weight actually came from the wheel or was it just one he used to hand out for people to see? Maybe there were much heavier weights used.
I have read somewhere that another eye witness reported seeing a box of weights removed from the wheel when it was moved and set up on it's second set of pillars. I am biased to believe that all the bob weights were of the same size keeping the wheel in balance. It is unlikely that the smaller hammer weights were removed as this would give the secret away! IMO the weights removed was the pendulum bob weights.

Round cylindrical weights: The weights James and I normally used are barbell weights of 2.5 and 5 pounds. these weights are 5/8" in thickness and only the diameter is changed. I use 14 gauge flat bar for levers and pendulum rods, a complete mechanism can be place within a plane of 1" thick. Four pendulums per plane. Eight mechanisms can be installed in a wheel 2-1/4" thick inside measurement.
We assume that the Kassel wheel was the most powerful because it had the biggest depth, being eighteen inches, whereas the Merseberg was only one foot thick, but the latter turned at almost twice the speed of the former, and in either direction. We have Bessler's words telling us that he could reconfigure his wheels to turn either very slowly or much faster, but we don't know whether this was achieved with different weights or more or fewer mechanisms or a change in the range of movement inside the wheel. We don't know what it is that altered the wheel's speed nor its power
bigger depth means more pendulums, four on each added plane. Speed and cycle time is set by length of pendulum rod. The maximum length would be to center the pendulum pivot point at center of radius of wheel thus giving it it's slowest speed.

He could make the device slower or faster, not by adding or removing weights but by shortening the rod length and moving the pivot point outward accordingly, keeping the bob and impulse hammer in contact. Removing pendulums would also drop the output torque value.
If Bessler was able to make a wheel such as the Merseberg wheel, with a speed of 50 RPM, isn't it conceivable that he could have made the Kassel wheel capable of 50 RPM or more? The reason for the slower RPM could be because he had in mind the long duration test and a slower speed might have been thought less risky due to decreased wear and tear.
Did he not say something to the effect that he could make his wheels slower or faster with more or less power and that the limitations were only in its size which he could make bigger or smaller?

Yes it is quite possible that the Kassel wheel was deliberately designed for a slower speed with longevity in mind. I would say; not for the wear and tear on the mechanisms but for the sake of the lack of lubrication of the axle bearings.
The greater depth of the Kassel wheel may have been due to extra weights on the ends of levers to compensate for the slower speed. They would need to be added horizontally in order to maintain the same mechanical advantage so that might explain the increase in depth. The only reason for adding weight would be to increase power, maybe because he wished to slow down the Kassel wheel - so slowing the speed down seems to me to confirm planning for the long duration test.
Rather than stating; 'extra weights on the ends of levers to compensate for slower speed', I would simply say; the greater depth was required to add more pendulums to compensate for the lost torque due to pendulum cycle time which governed the speed.
The reason I'm saying this is that we all make assumptions on the size and number of weights, to try to estimate the potential output of the wheel when really it is pure guess work,
I could not agree more! hopefully the input that Scott, James and I have presented here will fulfill or make obsolete some of these assumptions.

Ralph Lortie
Ealadha
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:45 pm

Re: re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by Ealadha »

rlortie wrote:Ealadha,

If you are not serious about it, and it is just a hobby, I suggest you move to another over-unity forum and make room here for the serious.
You don't understand what i mean , inventors would know what i mean , people who are being serious cannot imagine and because they can't use their creative imagination because they are being serious ,they cannot be inventive .
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by rlortie »

So a serious person cannot be inventive! Thank you, I and a lot of others here will appreciate this enlightenment.

Ralph
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by ovyyus »

Ealadha wrote:...people who are being serious cannot imagine and because they can't use their creative imagination because they are being serious ,they cannot be inventive...
Van Gogh was pretty serious. Duh.

People with less creative imagination seem to make more moronic generalizations.
john
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:04 pm

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by john »

ovyyus,
Didn't Van Gogh cut off his ear and then later commit suicide ?
Sounds pretty serious to me.

John
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

Post by rlortie »

eccentrically1 wrote:I thought the estimations for power didn't rely on size or number of the weights, just the weight lifted in so much time.
Figuratively speaking the power output of a machine is measured by the use of a Prony brake or similar operating apparatus after it is built and running. Weight lifted in X amount of time is the formula for horse power

Where as I do not do math on this forum the following was borrowed from Wikipedia.

Mechanical horsepower.

Assuming the third CGPM (1901, CR 70) definition of standard gravity, gn=9.80665 m/s2, is used to define the pound-force as well as the kilogram force, and the international avoirdupois pound (1959), one mechanical horsepower is:

1 HP ≡ 33,000 ft·lbf/min by definition
= 550 ft·lbf/s since 1 min = 60 s
= 550×0.3048×0.45359237 m·kgf/s since 1 ft = 0.3048 m and
= 76.0402249068 kgf·m/s 1 lb = 0.45359237 kg
= 76.0402249068×9.80665 kg·m2/s3 g = 9.80665 m/s2
= 745.69987158227022 W since 1 W ≡ 1 J/s = 1 N·m/s = 1 (kg·m/s2)·(m/s)

Or given that 1 hp = 550 ft·lbf/s, 1 ft = 0.3048 m, 1 lbf ≈ 4.448 N, 1 J = 1 N·m, 1 W = 1 J/s: 1 hp = 746 W
is rated in torque foot pounds or x amount of weight lifted in a given time.

To attempt to assume the horsepower of Bessler's machines takes us right back to what I am trying to steer away from. To many assumptions and unknown's leading to more assuming of an estimation!

IMO There is no objectivity in pursuing this path.
If the kassel was supposed to turn slower because it was designed for the duration test, then comparing the two wheels' speeds may not reveal anything but that.

We have only the witness testimony to rely on; speculation has to begin and end there.

If the mechanical advantage the wheels had is irrelevant to output power, then the size and number of the weights is irrelevant to output power anyway, isn't it?
Your words which ring true! not mine. :-)

Ralph
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by ovyyus »

John, best stick with Tiddlywinks :D
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by ovyyus »

rlortie wrote:Weight lifted in X amount of time is the formula for horse power
More than just a formula, weight lifted x distance x time it is the actual work done. Bessler's demonstrations of work were all weight lifting exercises in one form or another - and they all appear deceptive in one form or another.

Bessler seemed to act as though power limitation was an inherent problem, yet he talked as though it was not. The gap between things done and things said usually hides something interesting.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by rlortie »

Bill,

I would say that power limitations was, is, and will be an inherit problem base on the alleged description of his weights.

jim_Mich has reached for his machinist hand book more times than i. It is not hard to look up or calculate the Pe in foot pounds for a four pound weight X distance from the axis.

I will play along with the hypothetical approach for moment to make my point; lets say that Scott's post of 2002 and mine are on the money. The wheel is twelve feet in diameter, this means we can have a pendulum swing of 360 degrees within half the radius which is 6' minus half the axle diameter. So lets say we have a 2'-6" pendulum measured from center of pivot to end of a four pound bob weight. (Take into account that Bessler stated his axle was full of holes and compartments allowing for a longer swing)

Now if I drop the pendulum from horizontal while pivoting on a horizontal cross bar (spoke), how much Cf force will be applied to the bob weight when it reaches vertical? Calculate that by 2'6" (or pivot point to center of axis) and you have your applied foot pounds of torque per pendulum.

if I were to be interested in knowing how much torque or power Bessler's machine could produce, my research would probably start with the hardwood stampers allegedly lifted and dropped. Here we have no problem wondering about how many parts a line need be to lift a hundred weight which is also variable by different standards. To this day we are still stuck with a long hundred weight and a short hundred weight. IIRC some witnesses estimated it to only be 60 to 70 pounds on a four part line.

Forget all that and remember that it was also stated that it would lift a man off the ground when stopping it but he could stop it!

Send my your address; I promise, no more bathing suit beauties!

Ralph
john
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:04 pm

Re: re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by john »

John Collins wrote:Can I just reiterate a point I wanted to make which seems to have got lost in my post.

If Bessler was able to make his first three wheels turn at 50 RPM regardless of whether they were one or two-way wheels, why would he make his final and most robustly built one, only able to turn at about half the speed of the others?

My suggestion was that it was so he could be sure that it would suffer less wear and tear during the long duration test because it would only have to to turn half the number of times, compared to say the Merseberg wheel.

We know he claimed to be able to make wheels that could turn slowly or faster, so this was deliberate. It seems to me that a slower turning wheel might produce less power than a faster turning one? If so that would explain the extra depth to his wheel when compared to the Merseberg one which was the same diameter but only a foot thick - he needed to add some extra weights.

Given that possibility I meant to suggest that perhaps it would be possible to produce a much faster turning wheel complete with extra weights that could generate the kind of power we seek for our modern electrical requirements.

JC
John C.,
I am biased because I have my own pet theory. But a wider wheel that rotates slower would allow for less movement of the internal workings.
As you mentioned, friction would be less as a result of parts needing to move less.
Plus another important concern, less weight/fluid would need to be pumped. Less stress on everything. It could be the one failure of my pet theory is that the fluid being used would weigh more than any one single weight and could weigh as much as 2 or 3.


John
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by ovyyus »

Ralph wrote:...it was also stated that it would lift a man off the ground when stopping it but he could stop it!
Exactly, it was a statement about inertia and not a statement about power.

When I consider Wagner's comments about how easily Bessler's assistant could stop the wheel, and when I consider the short control handle depicted in the Merseburg wheel diagram (labelled 23), and when I consider how the Kassel wheel slowed under such a relatively small load, and when I consider reports about low output power concerns or lift reduction, I feel increasingly uneasy about the gap between what was said (and what I assume was said) and what was actually done. Bessler's huge 12 foot Kassel wheel - his most powerful wheel - managed only 30 Watts output. That's a wake up call.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: Speculations on the witness's evidence

Post by rlortie »

A wake up call for some maybe, i have been satisfied with my own conclusion for the last five and a half years that we should not expect more than 25 watts! You are correct it is a sign of inertia.

I have always believed it did not produce enough power to pump water even in chain or relay fashion otherwise Prince karl would have latched on to it for his cascade water fall.

I can except this, the only thing that interests me is the basic concept that allowed the machine to overcome its own friction for self-sustainability. Once the is found, then with today's technology we can work on ways to make it more efficient. I fear that payback for a commercial 25-30 watt producer is not cost effective when considering the cost of a twelve foot wheel sitting in your yard.

The continuous lifting of a box of brick or rock was probably more like the one estimate given of 60 pounds using a four part line.

As for the Archimedes screw, I have not seen where anyone has taken in the consideration that it was supported on a diagonal base and the unit itself was packing the biggest portion of the weight. Do not understand how you could get an accurate reading unless the screw was true vertical, but that's a different story for a some other time.

Now to the control handle on the Merseburg wheel: The need and justification of this thing has perplexed me since first seeing it on Mikey Ned's old web site many a moon ago. It alone has enough mass to throw the wheel out of balance or act as a counter balance making up for a dead spot. To use it as a start and stop convenience, wouldn't it cause less stress on the axle and drum components to simple manipulate the drum?

The assistant that had his feet picked up off the ground undoubtedly did so by grabbing the drum. Any way there it is sticking out of the axle like a sore thumb! The first thought that crossed my mind is that it was for throwing a half loop of rope around to lift the rock or brick. But now I believe as Fletcher that the rope was controlled windless style so that slackening the whip end of the rope would allow the box to drop once picked to its limit.

Ralph
Post Reply