The secret behind Bessler's wheel...

[Fletcher]

Hi Ralph .. we have 1-2 meter tides that wax and wane with the moon phases etc. Yet over in nearby Oz they can have 6 meter tides in some places and at similar latitudes too IINM.

It is interesting that some places on earth get 1 tide a day and others can have 3 IIRC.

My simple view of tidal mechanics is that gravity between earth and moon (& sun) act on each other (solid and water) much like ME's animation. A bulge occurs in the earths oceans facing the moon. This ripples around the earths oceans at the shortest distance between them thereabouts.

Alternatively when the height of water of high tide is released momentum causes the water to settle downwards again. I think of this like a stone dropped in a pond. Ripples move outwards. So they would on a round earth - pond. Meeting up again on the opposite side and reinforcing (hence second high tide), here usually about 12 & 1/2 hours later thereabouts (there just proved the earth is not flat).

Then there is the effect of low pressure creating a storm surge higher water etc as an aside.

So my view would be that gravity creates the potential in the water head for the first tide but since water has hydrogen bonds then there is a linking of molecules and momentum has a part to play in that tide as well as they get pulled along together. Then the second tide is momentum driven in a kind of reverse process.

The moon used to rotate out of phase with earth but now is gravitationally locked with earth. That is I believe because of crustal tides and the fact that it is not an exact spheroid so it acts like a pendulum. However energy is robbed from the system by crustal frictions so that the pendulum (rotating moon) slowed and stopped over a very long time. That interaction also affected the earth in the same way and so our days are lengthening.

Additionally the moon is moving away from the earth by about 2 cm a year so tides may become a thing of the past but don't worry, not in our lifetimes ;7)

So gravity gives the system potential energy but momentum and frictions resulting are robbing the system by mechanical energy losses.

Probably not technically correct but thankfully the fish know less than me on that one, I think.

[sleepy]

Once the moon has moved too far away,where will get our cheese?! And how will we save the werewolves? Just what I needed,more things to worry about.Thanks Fletcher!

[preoccupied]

Will using Bessler's Wheel pull the moon in closer or push it further away?

[agor95]

Bessler's Wheel can only push.

Also it depends is Bessler's Wheel on the Earth or the moon?

If it is on the moon where is it located?

[eccentrically1]

Ok, I'll address the elephant: could Bessler's wheel have harnessed earth and moon momentum? If so, how would it have been done?

[Fletcher]

It's always been a seductive thought but I don't have the faintest idea how it could be done. Someone with a higher level of mechanical aptitude might see a way.

[ovyyus]

http://www.rilhas.com/Documentos/EarthR ... y_006.html

Extracting energy from the Earth’s rotation is, without a doubt, possible. That has been proven since, at least, 1851. The debate should, thus, be focused on determining if the Earth’s rotational energy can be extracted in any useful way. All the math I apply here is very simple, and the principles I invoke are all very well known and understood.

[agor95]

@eccentrically1

Respect is earned by asking the questions about the elephant in the room.

And getting the answer from the elephant.

I am writing up a simulator web page.

I will include the Bessler Wheel down force (N).

Regards

[eccentrically1]

5) Can such machine be built?

You can assemble the required parts easily, so the answer is yes. You can build a machine that extracts energy from the Earth’s rotation. You input 1000J to set it up and it extracts 0.0001J from the Earth’s rotation energy. This is not interesting, for most applications. For others it is very interesting and useful, like the Foucault pendulum in many museums. It is useful as a tool to prove that the Earth is rotating, but not at all useful as a power source.

That wouldn't be equivalent to the power in Bessler's wheel, so there must be another way.

[ME]

It's possible Bessler's wheel had some influence on Earth's rotation; if only for Conservation-of-Angular-Momentum reasons.
When it depends on Earth's rotation then it will likely only work at some specific orientation/wind-direction.
When it influences Earth's rotation then this issue may be solved by always using two in tandem, in-line and counter-rotating.

When it works on momentum transfer it may be the environment cools down. When it works by gravity it may heat up. When it transforms and destroys gravity then there should be convection stream around that wheel...

With a lot of Bessler's wheels it seems we can create Potential Energy "out of thin air".
We can (and will because we can) raise things against Earth's gravity and consequently make the Earth's moment of inertia larger. The Earth should slow down because of that.
Logically that should be solvable by using a wheel in one orientation and ignore that earlier counter-rotating-pair-solution.
But we should raise a lot of things for long period of time for a noticeable influence... and we could ask the same questions for solar and wind power.

It's likely tectonic-plate migrations on our planet overshadows any of those influences. Perhaps we can harness that: Tectonic-squeeze-power.


One of the biggest Bessler's mystery clue: when all things "necessarily rotate all around each other" then it's seems disobedient to imagine it actually needed ground to react against.
For example a Roberval needs ground as reference, it doesn't work without it.

How would Bessler's wheel perform when it was strung up like an acrobat on a swing?
Would it still rotate, would it still self-start, would it stay vertical on its own, would it follow the universe like Foucault's pendulum?

But I don't suspect it did harness the rotation of the Earth or the orbit of the Moon, it went reportedly way too fast.
The observed wheelspeeds seem to point to a velocity where centrifugal forces balance with gravity, reached within a few rotations.
Perhaps he geared things up to match, who knows.

Anyway, could we generate enough power to generate our own tides in case our Moon fled the scene? Will our werewolves be satisfied with LED-alternatives? Finally no more lunatics in this world? But how will future generations 'remember' the Moon landing? What moon?

All those questions!
I guess we need a working wheel to figure this all out.... it could be days!
:-)

[MrVibrating]

The observed wheelspeeds seem to point to a velocity where centrifugal forces balance with gravity, reached within a few rotations.

...here's something i've been toying over this afternoon:

- consider an orbiting mass, tethered to the central axis via a loaded spring

- the spring force and CF are equal and opposite, hence the mass is at rest

- because the spring force is counter-balancing CF, the amount of input work required to retract the mass is decreased

- thus the rise in RKE from retracting the mass is greater than the cost of retracting it against CF!

In short, without the spring assistance, the rise in RKE is exactly equal to the cost of the MoI retraction.

But if we input much of that cost as prior sprung PE, we can pull the mass in on the cheap while rotating...

In principle, the ratio could be 10:1 or more, ie. 1 J of GPE might be applied to cause a 10 J rise in RKE.

Obviously, when the mass has to slide outwards again to reset, RKE will want to drop again by that same 10 J... still, i'm wondering if this might yet provide an opportunity for that first step up into a logic trap somewhere..

[Fletcher]

But if we input much of that cost as prior sprung PE, we can pull the mass in on the cheap while rotating...

Kind of reminds me of an automatic bollard I'd once heard about.

The observed wheelspeeds seem to point to a velocity where centrifugal forces balance with gravity, reached within a few rotations.

Yeah, that's always been a head scratcher. 'Bluesguitar' was always reminding us about that, and rightly so.

Bessler's one-way wheels were reportedly always OOB when stopped and had to be tied down (in any position it seems).

That's kind of backed up by the very quick acceleration up to rotating speed in 2 or 3 turns. Though no mention about how long this took but I seem to remember 'within a minute' from somewhere which would be in the ball park for a 9 - 12 foot wheel I guess. This suggests to me long periods of OOB within the wheel to allow that acceleration and accumulation of momentum.

It might also suggest that something inside had to move (read fall) and influence something else and this falling to attain KE took some time because of the height loss required. But as the wheel gained speed the KE achieved became less and less due to CF's as you guys have said.

And this sort of suggests why his wheels went from 26 rpm to 20 rpm under load, i.e. less cf's diminishing effect on output capability. And why other machines coupled to it could improve output or something like that.

The bread crumbs seem to be leading somewhere deep in the woods.

[preoccupied]

hi Fletcher What if there is a unique arrangement of weights that produce leverage where each position is overbalanced downwards? That would be a new form of geometry. What would be important is to know what this geometry is and not the benefit gravity can give us in industry because we will not know if gravity-use/overuse is dangerous and therefore we cannot use gravity for energy if we find a way to cheat and steal extra. New math in new geometry would deserve attention from the scientific community and not the invention of a perpetual motion machine that is its side effect. If raj design works maybe it's because his weights are not on a single point on the plane. Perhaps weights that are long or of different shapes or changing shapes are necessary to break the geometry. Maybe the weights have to be levers also or they have to be weights and have mechanical properties also. If there is more than one way to make a perpetual motion machine on gravity that doesn't exploit some magic but is just because of simple mechanics that we all know, maybe the weights have to be more than weights. I'm still twerking my previous drawing and I do think right angles to the axis are important and that Bessler had a working gravity wheel.

[Fletcher]

What if there is a unique arrangement of weights that produce leverage where each position is overbalanced downwards? That would be a new form of geometry. What would be important is to know what this geometry is and not the benefit gravity can give us in industry because we will not know if gravity-use/overuse is dangerous and therefore we cannot use gravity for energy if we find a way to cheat and steal extra.

New math in new geometry would deserve attention from the scientific community and not the invention of a perpetual motion machine that is its side effect.

If raj design works maybe it's because his weights are not on a single point on the plane.

Perhaps weights that are long or of different shapes or changing shapes are necessary to break the geometry. Maybe the weights have to be levers also or they have to be weights and have mechanical properties also.

If there is more than one way to make a perpetual motion machine on gravity that doesn't exploit some magic but is just because of simple mechanics that we all know, maybe the weights have to be more than weights. I'm still twerking my previous drawing and I do think right angles to the axis are important and that Bessler had a working gravity wheel.

Hi .. there is no doubt that geometry is important. If something moves internally within a structure then it forms a new geometric shape. But since that structure must eventually regain its former shape to restore PE's (the Stevin's problem) then any advantage in weight position shifting is later negated in the restoration process. Unless something can change shape without loosing any GPE. So far all the geometries I've seen lead to a zero sum game at best.

And has been discussed numerously any such shape changing that did result in accumulated wheel momentum would knock Newton's Laws around severely. The mathematicians would be very interested in that because it would prove that gravity wasn't a conservative force and could be used as a source of energy for a gravity wheel motor, as Bessler would have us believe. So the new paradigm would be more important to the scientific community than the wheel itself I should think, and as you've said.

"If raj design works maybe it's because his weights are not on a single point on the plane."

Well, that seems to make sense, if that's what his design achieves and it does result in a self-sustaining motion.

I have a tendency to take notice of what Oystein has researched with his codes and 'hero's mechanism etc and spoken about (I'd suggest that is the Prime Mover). He did make a particularly curious remark once that ... "if Bessler’s bi-directional wheel (if 8 weights are used) when 1 weight fell, 5 others will move, but only 4 is actually raised. The position before one weight falls, the wheel is in balanced."

This is curious to say the least because only 6 weights are accounted for. I remember thinking at the time, what about the other 2, why aren't they mentioned ?

Anyways, he seems to be suggesting all things affecting each other to achieve imbalance (re MT137ish), therefore a sort of gross interconnection approach.

See this approach by member sequeen (from the Albums pages).

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... er=user_id

Whether that's true as it sounds or not I guess we'll have to wait and see, when he publishes unless someone else is on that wavelength with something positive. But it is a different way to look at the problem rather than individual weights falling and perhaps influencing one other etc as we all tend to focus on at various times.

Good luck with your approach.

[ME]

"if Bessler’s bi-directional wheel (if 8 weights are used) when 1 weight fell, 5 others will move, but only 4 is actually raised. The position before one weight falls, the wheel is in balanced."
This is curious to say the least because only 6 weights are accounted for. I remember thinking at the time, what about the other 2, why aren't they mentioned ?

▼ : 1 weight drops
△ : 4 raised
◄ : (5-4)=1 will move (when not up nor down then sideways)
● : 2 do not move

1 down has more leverage than 4 up, because otherwise it would be balanced.
Perhaps 1 down is actually balanced with 4.5 up (2:9 balance), where this 0.5 is used to shift one horizontally.

Because all 8 probably do such thing at some point in time then we could just attempt to put this stuff in sequence and see if it makes a difference or is mechanically convenient.

◄　●　△
△　◌　△
▼　●　△
╌╌╌╌
△　●　△
◄　◌　▼
△　●　△
╌╌╌╌
△　▼　△
●　◌　●
△　◄　△