Energy Exchange

[Gill Simo]

As things stand then a wheel/axle will only turn constantly whilst its in receipt of a constant input of energy.
Please enlighten me as to how many ways there are to input energy into it?
Perhaps there's many a way & I'm just plain dumb...but I only see
1) A turning force to the axle.
2) A turning force to the rim.
3) One other.

Thanks/Gill

[Bill_Mothershead]

The whole point of the Bessler wheel is that it produced energy....
it did not need to consume energy from an outside source to keep it turning.

[spinner361]

it did not need to consume energy from an outside source to keep it turning

This sounds to me like an assumption. My assumption is that it required the force of gravity.

I'd also like to add that the axle was the output, so in some manner force was applied to the axle directly or indirectly.

[Grimer]

My assumption is that it required the force of gravity.

It required the force of Newtonian Gravity as a catalyst and Ersatz Gravity as a source of energy.

The potential energy of Newtonian gravity cycles up and down like the temperature of the working fluid in the Carnot cycle. There is no total change.
How could there possibly be. The masses in the wheel would have to finish up underground and in the sky for the net potential energy to be unchanged

So though Newtonian Gravity(NG) is needed, like a catalyst it is not used up.

Bessler Wheel energy comes from Ersatz Gravity(EG).

Unlike NG which is constant while we are on the earth, Ersatz gravity (centrifugal gravity if you don't like the Germans) can be varied and by combining NG and EG you can create different effective gravities. It's as though you are moving between planets with different gravities.

Drop a weight under one effective NG/EG gravity and raise it under another and you have a gain in NG. You have an EG NG cycle. This is what's going on in Bessler's wheel.

But we can forget about Bessler and devise simpler means of harnessing EG.

[Fletcher]

'Energy' can be applied anywhere inside the wheel from the axle to the rim as long as it is not directly above or below the CoR (the axle pivot). Thus the inputted force creates a turning moment or torque and this causes the wheel to turn.

The question most struggle with is where does that excess of torque in one direction come from ?

If a conservative force such as gravity is the only source of force then there is no excess of impetus (torque) in any direction. The only way there can be excess torque from shifting internal weights if extra energy is added (source unknown) which raises weights to a greater height than can be achieved by recycling gravity force (GPE) alone. MT13 is an example and so is MT15 of this illusion.

To this end Bessler says in MT15 that nothing of the Prime Movers source can bee seen or deduced. So there must be another structure which moves first and does a job. Many assume that this is to lift weights higher as MT's 13 & 15 suggest. But it could also be a device that causes excess of torque which gives the wheel more velocity (flick) than otherwise it would have. And to me that could possibly be something that has less counter torque than positive torque leaving a surplus of torque in one direction. The implication being that the Prime Mover would be an Inertia exploiting device.

Thus the 'outer' gravity OOB subsystems are secondary and really are there only to meet Bessler's 'need' to solve the PMM (like others built before him) requirement. MT48 suggests this is so because it is an elevator design where clearly the Prime Mover gives the elevator excess speed to lift the center ball stream faster and keep the delivery rate up so it works.

Grimer .. I know you are a firm believer in EG. But I want to just remind everyone that Centrifugal Force or Centrifigal Force or EG is actually Centripetal Force (center seeking force and acceleration). Cpf is only present when an object is constrained to follow a curved path. The moment the constraint is released Cpf completely disappears and the object then has a linear momentum (mv) which can do Work, but the work is no more than the KE it had. Furthermore the Cpf is at right angles to the velocity and so has no forward component of thrust.

IF a mechanical solution to turning that normal force into a partial forward vector was available then a wheel could speed up. I have made many sims of using the inertia of weights released from Cpf's to do work. That work being to accelerate the wheel forward. It can be done but resetting the weights to the closer starting radius without using all the extra energy is not possible (so far). It takes the same energy ( f x d ) to close the radius as gained from opening it and capturing that energy potential instead of letting it waste thru impacts at right angles to the radius.

N.B. Bessler's wheels made a lot of noise from impacts which were apparently necessary (and wasteful) but I would not call them impact driven wheels. Clearly they don't work but with the addition of the Prime Mover perhaps they are an semi-efficient way to compliment the Prime Mover's excess torque generation ability.

These are my opinions.

[Grimer]

If pulled in and out radially from the centre then there is indeed no gain.
But what about if they are pulled in and out tangentially from that large drum of an axle?

I agree with you about impact but what about Impulse, force x time?

[Fletcher]

I'll have to wait till your next installment Grimer to see where you are going with all this.

[agor95]

@Gill Simo

It is good to have people asking questions like this one.

The value of a question is the quality of the answers.

Fletcher's post is an example of good analysis.

I tried to write a reply but looking at
Energy, Power, Work, Torque & Watts made me stop.

It appears Energy and Torque can trip a person up.

Joules is the unit for Kinetic and potential Energy and that is understandable.

However Joules per second [watts of power] to create torque by applying force on a wheel my not cause an Energy Exchange.

The Energy Exchange only happens if the wheel rotates.
Make sure the break is off before you push.

P.S. Or question method 3: move the axle in a circle.
Any moving parts in the wheel will be subject to inertia.
That will result in an overbalance effect.

[Gill Simo]

Thank you for your replies.
It really was a genuinely simple, dumb, question relating to a wheel/axle...not in connection with Bessler or PM at all....likewise the subject title...just something vaguely apt to put in the box.
On reflection it seems that there is only one way to turn a wheel/axle & that's by applying a turning force....& that to apply that requires application at a distance `d` from the centre point...to create/cause a `moment`.
Meaning that energy can only be applied to the side/s of any axle/wheel in order to turn it.
Going off at a tangent somewhat....most everyone here ponders on how to create a wheel that can somehow be constantly unbalanced. As that's totally impossible then perhaps it might be more productive to start with an unbalanced wheel & look for ways to perpetuate that?
Cos' that statement above re energy can only to applied to the side/s of any axle/wheel is quite untrue....an unbalanced wheel, once set in motion, can receive an input of energy by flailing its centre point.
Which leads me to an even dumber question perhaps.....if one could produce a motion...one motion...comprised of two motions....the unbalanced wheel around, the axle flailing....would that, in theory, self perpetuate?
Thanks/Gill

[Grimer]

...
Furthermore the Cpf is at right angles to the velocity and so has no forward component of thrust.

...

That is an idealization. It is not true for a real material.

[Grimer]

I'll have to wait till your next installment Grimer to see where you are going with all this.

Well you haven't had long to wait, Fletcher.

My next installment is up on Community Buzz.

You'll now have the chance to show what a sharp knife you are be recognising that it is a solution to getting free energy from the interaction of the Newtonian Gravity and Ersatz Gravity fields. ;-)

Once the device has your imprimatur all the rest of the forum will rush to jump on the bandwagon, eh. After all you have been on the forum since 2003 so you should be a bit of an expert by now.

[Grimer]

The whole point of the Bessler wheel is that it produced energy....
it did not need to consume energy from an outside source to keep it turning.

Yes, it produced energy.

But what order of energy.

Did it produce Nuclear energy?

No.

Did it produce electrical energy.

No.

Did it produce heat energy?

No.

So what order of energy did it produce then?

It produced Rotational Kinetic Energy (RKE), didn't it.

It produced 2nd derivative energy.

And how did it do that?

Did it do it by transducing the highest form of energy we know of, nuclear energy?

You may laugh but I seem to remember someone suggested that.

Did it do it by transducing, electromagnetic or heat energy?

No evidence of that.

Perhaps it did it by simply transducing the next highest order of motion energy, Precession Kinetic Energy (PKE), 3rd derivative energy.

And if you want to see one way of doing that then go to the last post in the

Linear, Rotational and Precessional KE - A physical example thread on the Community Buzz forum.

[Gill Simo]

Was that last question really so dumb as to warrant total dismissal?
I'll ask again, in the hope that someone might take pity on me & offer some thoughts.

If some arrangement could be made, whereby the turn of an unbalanced rim must also incur a synchronized back/forth flail of its axle....an axle that in its turn must also move so to speak...would this, theoretically, perpetuate....it being a kinda `kid swinging a conker` with the kid kinda somehow automated?

[Art]

Hi Gill ,

You mean something similar to MT 51 or MT 59 ?

[Grimer]

Was that last question really so dumb as to warrant total dismissal?
I'll ask again, in the hope that someone might take pity on me & offer some thoughts.

If some arrangement could be made, whereby the turn of an unbalanced rim must also incur a synchronized back/forth flail of its axle....an axle that in its turn must also move so to speak...would this, theoretically, perpetuate....it being a kinda `kid swinging a conker` with the kid kinda somehow automated?

There would have to be a difference between the swing forward and the swing back.

Take the Rotational Kinetic Energy (RKE) generating flywheel/yoyo motor as an example.

The flywheel is continuously unbalanced by the moment applied by the off-centre string.

Say the string is to the left of CG. Then the flywheel will fall rotating clockwise at an increasing angular velocity and increasing 2nd derivative energy (RKE) until it reaches the end of the string.

At that point the string automatically moves from being left of centre to being right of centre. This commutator action is analogous to that of a simple electric motor.

The wheel continues to rotate clockwise as it winds itself up the string at a decreasing angular velocity and decreasing 2nd derivative energy (RKE) until it reaches the top of the string.

To generate energy an asymmetry has to be introduced into the cycle. Without it the Rotational Kinetic Energy generated during the fall is all used up during the rise.

The moment on the flywheel is increased by using a larger diameter axle for the winding up phase.

This means there's a difference between the falling 2nd derivative energy and the rising 2nd derivative energy. In other words 3rd derivative energy, Precession Kinetic Energy (PKE) is being generated.

Bessler managed to fold this process into a single cycle. Precisely how he managed to do this is really only of historical interest now that we know how we can generate free energy with a yoyo action flywheel motor.
It's a reasonable assumption that with few exceptions the members of this forum are searching for the philosopher's stone of abundant "free" energy rather that attempting to find the answer to the puzzle Bessler has set us.

Bessler's importance is that he demonstrated free energy could be generated with the aid of Newtonian Gravity.