The concrete arguments that Bessler was a fraud

[agor95]

So, operating a device at 267 watts for 6 weeks would consume a total of 269,136 watt-hours (or about 269.14 kilowatt-hours, kWh) of energy.

Any comments?
[/quote]

Thank goodness some quantitative analysis that is shared !!

[Tarsier79]

To quantify how much 267 watts is:
How high can I lift 100kg with 267W in 1 second (Watts is a measurement per second).

So, with a continuous power input of 267 watts, you can lift a 100kg mass to a height of approximately 0.271 meters (or 27.1 centimeters) in one second.

So using potential energy, to keep the wheel turning against air resistance, we would have to drop 100kg about 27cm per second to keep it running at the same speed....

I feel like there has been a mistake in the calculation logic here...

[agor95]

I feel like there has been a mistake in the calculation logic here...

I like your healthy attitude to rigorous analysis.

There are some aspects that should be taken into account.

The efficiency of the motor. You are driving electricity through an electrical system and well as circulating air.
The draw of power to accelerate the disc and air around it.

The difference in drag at various rotation rates.

Could be useful to plot power draw at various rotation rates after the disc has reached a stable speed.

The plot should have a recognisable curve.

Good Work

[Tarsier79]

What I really want to do is build a smaller scale flywheel and measure the actual power of a motor running it, compared to what ChatGPT says it will take. I am not sure if I have the time and availability to do this yet...

[agor95]

I am not sure if I have the time and availability to do this yet...

The more data points the better. Finding the power in to the power out of the motor would help.

Either for different rotation rates or different disc sizes [mass].

Hopefully you have started a trend in concrete quantitative analysis. No arguments here.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

What I really want to do is build a smaller scale flywheel and measure the actual power of a motor running it, compared to what ChatGPT says it will take. I am not sure if I have the time and availability to do this yet...

Can you not find a "flywheel energy storage calculator" that will allow you to put in all the variables you think appropriate, and calculate losses, which would = the energy needed to keep it turning?

[agor95]

What I really want to do is build a smaller scale flywheel and measure the actual power of a motor running it, compared to what ChatGPT says it will take. I am not sure if I have the time and availability to do this yet...

Can you not find a "flywheel energy storage calculator" that will allow you to put in all the variables you think appropriate, and calculate losses, which would = the energy needed to keep it turning?

:) Now that is what I call a back seat driver.

[eccentrically1]

if the servant says the above, she tells
a great falsehood.

If there was fraud it seems it was contained inside the wheel itself.

So in terms of Potential energy: how high could I theoretically lift 100kg with 30,240 Wh
ChatGPT:
......So, with 30,240 watt-hours of energy, you could theoretically lift a 100kg mass to a height of approximately 110,935.88 meters (about 111 kilometers) on Earth, assuming ideal conditions and neglecting losses due to friction and other factors.
Even if the wheel only used 5W (older tvs can use that much in standby), that is still equivalent to a PE of 100KG lifted 18.5 Km.

From this alone: If the Kassel wheel was a fraud, It was not internal. If someone was turning it from another room, It would require a team of strong men.

Perhaps it was both internal and external.

I feel like there has been a mistake in the calculation logic here...

I felt that way reading those numbers.
The wheels never had to lift any thing for more than a few seconds at a time, and then only 20, maybe 25 feet up. I don't think we can assume ideal conditions and neglect losses if we want a number for how high with X amount of power either.
Also, the mechanical advantage is not being included. A 12 foot wheel to 8 inch axle (Kassel) is an 18x MA. The load might have been 110 lbs (+ the box), but the MA of it made the actual load only 110/18 = ~6 pounds. (I'm guessing most of the mass was near the rim.)
That's why it took so long for the lifts to demonstrate. Why the axles had to be so wide - to hold all that rope. 6ish pounds did not impress.
That's why I'm suspicious about those short tests. If he really wanted to show the power, he should have put a lot more load on it. I guess the water screw showed its limitations best.

I don't think the 52 day wheel had much axle friction to deal with. He would have made sure it was lubricated.
I think the main issue was the drag it had to deal with. I wonder if that room was airtight. Probably not, imo.

[daxwc]

The diameter of the wheel is about twelve feet, and as well, the bearing was quite thin, about one quarter of an inch and only a sixth of its length was subject to friction. PM 70 Christian Wolff letter to Leibniz

Odd. What does that mean. We know the shaft was tapered and 1/6 of an inch had contact? Wish we knew the bearing arrangement.

[daxwc]

"February 3rd, 1729: Professor Jean-Pierre de Crousaz (tutor to Karl's grandson) wrote a letter to Professor 'sGravesande, stating, 'It is true that there is a machine at his house, to which they give the name perpetual motion; but that cannot be transported, it is much smaller, and it differs from the first, in that it only turns one way.' - PM 147"

Why can't it be transported?

[daxwc]

On June 1st, 1723, Christian Wolff penned a letter to Schumacher, the Czar's Librarian, which included a communication from Orffyresus:

"My perpetual motion machine remains unsold and is still available for purchase. I'm pleased that His Majesty the Czar has expressed interest in acquiring it, and I'm equally delighted that you have been designated to examine and research this invention. The price of the machine remains unchanged at 100,000 thalers.

I have ambitious plans for a comprehensive 'Treatise on Mechanics' that I intend to publish. This treatise will feature numerous machines and detailed drawings that can be produced at my residence. It will provide a comprehensive history of the development of my perpetual motion machine. Anyone acquiring this treatise will be able to select and construct any machine of their choice, incorporating my invention. The Treatise will be presented in two folio volumes and should be ready for publication in approximately two years from the start of the project. It promises to be both captivating and invaluable to the public. While I have much more to convey on this matter, I'll keep my remarks brief due to time constraints. Nevertheless, I propose the following arrangement, subject to your approval:

If His Majesty the Czar could provide an advance of 10,000 thalers for this work, it would significantly expedite the publication process. Within two years, he would possess a substantial number of these treatises. The content of this treatise will encompass my perpetual motion machine, revealing its construction in all stages comprehensively, eliminating the need for any additional contributions. I would like to emphasize that we will include sufficient guarantees to ensure the transaction's security.

In the event that my perpetual motion machine is sold before the treatise is published, rest assured that I will complete the project and publish the treatise as planned. However, the machine that has been sold will not be included in the treatise, as my intention is to sell only one specific type of machine, not all of them. I possess a variety of machines, each operating on distinct principles, including those driven by weights, balls, springs, internal gears, internal water, oil, alcohol, and wind." - PM 124

[Tarsier79]

t79 wrote:

I feel like there has been a mistake in the calculation logic here...

Ecc:

I felt that way reading those numbers.

My concern was only how it calculated the drag on the 12 foot wheel.

Not using ChatGPT for 6 weeks running untouched at 5 watts:

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/potential-energy
100kg is lifted approx 5mm per second.
There are approx 3,630,000 seconds in six weeks
100kg is lifted approx 18.15Km

That calculation from ChatGPT was correct

[daxwc]

The Treatise will be presented in two folio volumes and should be ready for publication in approximately two years from the start of the project.

So the letter was written in 1723. That means MT could have been done by 1725.

Also meaning that MT is divided into two parts 1-55 and 56 – 137 or it is suggesting the Great Treatise is part and missing?
I feel the Great Treatise was made for Peter the Great hence the name. It would have been separate and showing what applications his wheels would be good for; those 250 wood blocks are currently lost.

“However, the machine that has been sold will not be included in the treatise, as my intention is to sell only one specific type of machine, not all of them. I possess a variety of machines, each operating on distinct principles, including those driven by weights, balls, springs, internal gears, internal water, oil, alcohol, and wind." - PM 124

Doesn’t even make sense.

[eccentrically1]

So, with 30,240 watt-hours of energy, you could theoretically lift a 100kg mass to a height of approximately 110,935.88 meters (about 111 kilometers) on Earth, assuming ideal conditions and neglecting losses due to friction and other factors.

That calculation from ChatGPT was correct

I don't think we can assume ideal conditions and neglect losses if we want a number for how high with X amount of power either.

[Tarsier79]

Even if the wheel only used 5W (older tvs can use that much in standby), that is still equivalent to a PE of 100KG lifted 18.5 Km.

Vs

100kg is lifted approx 5mm per second.
There are approx 3,630,000 seconds in six weeks
100kg is lifted approx 18.15Km

5W or 5J is not a lot. I would be surprised if we can keep a flywheel this size running on 5W, so for me 5W is a best case scenario. (Even if we could run it on 1W, just divide the end answer by 5. It is still not a plausible solution.

So what if we do the PE the other way, and to simplify rounding it down to 100kg @ 18km:

Lets pretend we have 3.5M to drop all the PE within the wheel (we do not, unless Bessler is an undocumented DR Who and actually designed the wheel as a Tardis). We would need to fit 514,286 kg worth of weight into the wheel and drop it all 3.5M, or the equivalent in wound spring power.... Not going to happen.