How much horse power?

[Fcdriver]

Ovyyus,
If the fastest bicycle in 1712 met the 1712 criteria for a racing bike,but doesn't meet the criteria for a racing bike today,that does not mean it was not a bike.Also,since no one has any experience with what is or isn't PM,I don't think any criteria can truly be valid.It is not a logical path to assume that Bessler did or did not use gravity based on changing criteria.Did the Miami Dolphins never have a perfect season because the definition of what the length of the season is, has changed?

It's my understanding that the bicycle wasn't invented until the 1860s, close to twenty years after Helmholtz's claimed PM impossible? It bothers me that a Medical Doctor giving a paper outside of his declared field, would be accepted as sworn truth today. Helmholtz's main reasoning was that advanced day and time, if it had not been done by then, it was impossible. This was of the same thinking in 1898 that they felt the patent office should be closed, because all useful patents had been written! The idea that because Helmholtz's could do it, does not mean anything to me, he couldn't make a bicycle!

[Grimer]

Wow, is that ever disheartening! Here I had read people saying that if we could solve the Bessler Wheel problem, we could help with the global problem of producing clean energy. I was thinking you could power a small home with a large Bessler Wheel. But now here I find out the largest wheel he ever constructed could barely power a 100W light bulb! Bummer! This seems to really diminish the urgency of finding the answer to this puzzle, since it won't have much practical value. Not that it couldn't lead to more power-producing wheels. But if the numbers at http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... eel_Output are correct, Bessler's route to "free energy" is perhaps not the best route to be following...

I think your missing the point entirely phaedrus. The fact that he was able to accomplish what no one else in history has been able to and most physicists say is impossible is an incredible feat and yes it is exactly the point that understanding how he was able to do this most likely would lead to other possibly larger leaps in clean energy. Just the fact that it's possible would open up a whole other area a physics and divert god knows how much brain power that would otherwise be diverted to other scientific pursuits. Not only that it would lead to science reevaluating 300 years of science.

Box and Cox.

The Phaedrus (/ˈfiːdrəs/; Greek: Φαῖδρος), written by Plato, is a dialogue between Plato's protagonist, Socrates, and Phaedrus, an interlocutor in several dialogues.

The names "John Doe" or "John Roe" for men, "Jane Doe" or "Jane Roe" for women, or "Johnnie Doe" and "Janie Doe" for children, or just "Doe" non-gender-specifically are used as placeholder names for a party whose true identity is unknown or must be withheld in a legal action, case, or discussion.

The powers that be are obviously getting worried and assumed that the members of this forum are thick. They are right for the most part, unfortunately.

I'm afraid we are not going to see a working machine from Driver.

I was expecting a denial from you Frank. Or are we talking about a threesome, four if we include he from the beltway?

[Fcdriver]

Posturing can't help it I'm a real estate agent. My patent attorney wants as many claims of impossibility that I can find!

[John doe]

Is there any possibility that for this forum we could agree on "our" definition of a PMM.This nonsense about the sun and infinity and forever running devices is counter-productive.It's just double-talk used to evade giving a straight answer.

I agree that that sort of talk is not very relevant to what we are trying to accomplish.

For our purposes, the simplest description as to what we are seeking when we speak of a Perpetual Motion Machine (PMM) is just a device that outputs power without using any currently known and accepted energy source.

An "overbalanced wheel" has traditionally been considered an attempt at a PMM, of course, but if something similar using the force of gravity was to ever be found to actually work, it almost certainly would no longer fit the most strict definition of a PMM - which implies that there would be a creation of energy from nothing.

We would have instead simply demonstrated that there is another source of available energy to tap into - the gravitational field of the earth. (If this is possible, my own thinking would lead me to believe that there would also be a negligibly small change in the motion of the earth in the short term, also.)

A successful device in this regards would thus not show a creation of energy from nothing (and be a true PMM) but rather show that an available energy source has been overlooked by the scientific community.

I completely agree Furcurequ. However there is nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box inspiration can come from the strangest places. For example john collins interest in kiiking.

[WaltzCee]

I was expecting a denial from you Frank. Or are we talking about a threesome, four if we include he from the beltway?

I see you.

(^‿^v)

I'm wondering about Frank, myself. I've painted towns red and I know it doesn't take this long to dry.

[WaltzCee]

I'd like to propose what I think is an original idea. Now, damit, I insist if I'm wrong that any correct me. It isn't about me or this idea. It's about what is the truth. You can't hurt my feelings. Here it is.

There are velocities in a pure gravity wheel that have to exceed the escape velocity of earth.

If your wheel doesn't do this, it won't work.

end of story.

[Grimer]

25,020 mph. You can't be serious.

[AB Hammer]

WaltzCee quote

There are velocities in a pure gravity wheel that have to exceed the escape velocity of earth.

No, it is a trick to eliminate or minimize what gravity can latch onto, and then ride the gravity. Think some types of water wheel. Full on one side and empty on the other.



Grimer quote

25,020 mph. You can't be serious.

I don't thing WaltzCee means that, but X amount relative to what is needed.

[AB Hammer]

AB Hammer, Thanks for the kind words. With the wheel placed in a Centrifugal Force field it's power would be virtually limitless. Every lab in the country should be working on it! Do the arms on your wheel get longer and shorter? Sam Peppiatt

I see you missed my earlier post on page 3 so here is what I said again.

I didn't address about the arms changing length. Well the faster you get and if it changes length you will end up with a great shaking like an out of balance flywheel. each of the wheels inside act as if self contained and should balance each other to the larger wheel.


Alan

[Phaedrus]

I think your missing the point entirely phaedrus. The fact that he was able to accomplish what no one else in history has been able to and most physicists say is impossible is an incredible feat and yes it is exactly the point that understanding how he was able to do this most likely would lead to other possibly larger leaps in clean energy. Just the fact that it's possible would open up a whole other area a physics and divert god knows how much brain power that would otherwise be diverted to other scientific pursuits. Not only that it would lead to science reevaluating 300 years of science.

I think you are a bit naive. Ever hear this quote from Max Planck:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

If you think that once you or anyone else perfects a working wheel, that the scientific community is going to do a collective palm to their forehead and say "oh my god, we were wrong!", I think you are in for a surprise. For one thing, quite probably others have done it already, some even in the 21st century. So where are all the physicists reevaluating their beliefs? Steorn is now producing little power units (their Orbo technology) that can (supposedly) charge up your cell phone by producing energy out of nothing. I don't see the scientific establishment going all to pieces over this. In fact, of course, they have completely ignored it, since it doesn't fit into their weltanschauung. Its amazing to me that even 300 years ago, there was this opposition to what Johann Bessler was making known. I mean, this is way before there was even an oil industry that would certainly frown on this revelation.

[John doe]

WaltzCee quote

There are velocities in a pure gravity wheel that have to exceed the escape velocity of earth.

No, it is a trick to eliminate or minimize what gravity can latch onto, and then ride the gravity. Think some types of water wheel. Full on one side and empty on the other.



Grimer quote

25,020 mph. You can't be serious.

I don't thing WaltzCee means that, but X amount relative to what is needed.

I think your right AB Hammer. I was also thinking about this and I think you hit on another key subject. Everything is relative. Which reminds me of a joke I'm sure everyone has heard.

Two strangers were out backpacking in the woods. They came upon each other and decided to walk the next bit together. Around a bend in the trail they came face to face with a bear. One stranger drops to his knee, fetches his running shoes from his backpack and begins the removing his hiking boots. The other stranger just stares and says, "There is no way you can run faster than that bear."
The kneeling stranger stands up and replies, "I don't have to be faster than the bear. I only have to be faster than you."

[John doe]

I think your missing the point entirely phaedrus. The fact that he was able to accomplish what no one else in history has been able to and most physicists say is impossible is an incredible feat and yes it is exactly the point that understanding how he was able to do this most likely would lead to other possibly larger leaps in clean energy. Just the fact that it's possible would open up a whole other area a physics and divert god knows how much brain power that would otherwise be diverted to other scientific pursuits. Not only that it would lead to science reevaluating 300 years of science.

I think you are a bit naive. Ever hear this quote from Max Planck:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

If you think that once you or anyone else perfects a working wheel, that the scientific community is going to do a collective palm to their forehead and say "oh my god, we were wrong!", I think you are in for a surprise. For one thing, quite probably others have done it already, some even in the 21st century. So where are all the physicists reevaluating their beliefs? Steorn is now producing little power units (their Orbo technology) that can (supposedly) charge up your cell phone by producing energy out of nothing. I don't see the scientific establishment going all to pieces over this. In fact, of course, they have completely ignored it, since it doesn't fit into their weltanschauung. Its amazing to me that even 300 years ago, there was this opposition to what Johann Bessler was making known. I mean, this is way before there was even an oil industry that would certainly frown on this revelation.

You might be right but I think it also depends on the invention. If the invention is complex and difficult for the lay person to understand and or only produces negligible amounts of energy this very well could happen. But I think if it is relatively simple and or demonstratively produces large amounts of energy then it will be impossible to ignore. With the voices of climate change getting louder and the worlds sources of petroleum ( although gas is currently inexplicably cheap) ever dwindling there is a definite interest in this sort of device.
If it is the former it very we'll may require some sort of PR campaign to get the ball rolling as they say.
Regardless I'm sure the scientific community will have some sort of explanation as to why this is not really a true PMM and that this invention only proves that they were right all along!
As for bessler's contemporaries I think a number of things conspired together against him.
1) it was the birth of modern science as we know it. Astronomy was becoming astrology, alchemy was becoming chemistry etc.
2) Bessler's decision to ask for an exorbitant (for his time) amount of money.
3) the fact that he was not a scientist or mathematician and the pride and arrogance of those around him and in the fledgling scientific community at that time.

[Grimer]

Posturing can't help it I'm a real estate agent. My patent attorney wants as many claims of impossibility that I can find!

Forget the bloody patent. You'll never be able to protect it. Get the machine on YouTube fast as you can before you finish up like Mallove (they always hunt in pairs).

[Mark]

If Bessler's wheel met the criteria for 'true PM' in 1712, but does not meet the criteria today, then his wheel was not producing energy from gravity and/or inertia and the laws of physics stand. Of course, that also means that everyone searching for a gravity/inertia powered solution to Bessler's wheel is barking up the wrong tree.

I do not concur.

[ME]

Me neither.

I do agree with Ovyyus about the possibility of Bessler's PMM not meeting the current standards (whichever they be).
But this raises the question if Bessler made his mechanism being simply oblivious about those future standards (and worked anyway), or knowingly applied trickery.