The Value of Bessler's Low-Wattage Outputs

[primemignonite]

Dave!

Along the lines of your suggestion, I suspect that it will be possible to extend the wheel very much, so that it might not even resemble one afterward, being as lengthened as it is wide and tall. I am positive that Bessler realized this, but again, was quite limited in what he could do because all had to BE HIDDEN from view, and also because of limitations forced by not having access to say, neat aluminum extrusions and cheap, but very strong, steel rods, shafts, etc. We are sitting-pretty as far as the materials and bearing issues go. Bessler would have reveled in it all.

Jim_Mich,

That is a lot of information. Thanks. So, the picture is not so bleak as I found it in my amateur calculations. Excellent!

AB,

OK, more cross arms, but has it ever been nailed-down as to WHAT they were, actually? Personally speaking, I am still confused about it.

Graham,

I suppose that's what happens when monopolyitis takes over. De-regulation of vital utilities and allowing them to go private, was a prescription-sure for fulfilling John D. Rockefeller Sr's. prime directive: "Competition is a SIN!"

The game "Monopoly" appeared in the depths of the Great Depression. The little cartoon character with the mustache that hands out extras by means of Community Chest cards, and the other one, is of Pierpont Morgan Jr., the affable, friendly "Jack" Morgan. His father, the ferrocious J.P. Morgan (died 1912), was publicly against the supposed limitations put on banking and Wall Street by the proposed Federal Reserve Act, but privately, helped engineer it! His man on the sceme being one Benjamin Strong, then one of his closest associates, and later on, to be President of "B", the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

That game so-familiar and beloved by many, is the Oligrachs' inside joke! (They love them, and have many.)

It is a message to those who know, to the effect that "The bank always wins and ends up with everything! - Resistance is futile!" Of course "bank", there as everywhere, meaning 'central bank', as it surely is one in the game. Indeed! How often has the bank been 'broken' in plays? I've never seen it.

Do we 'get' the message? If-so, NOW WHAT?

"Bring on the wheel !!!!!" - Graham

All right. I shall endeavor to do-so.

James

[genmurphy]

Someone says that the wattage of the wheel is low. Let's look at the problem with another eye.

I will define here a new parameter that is the "power per volume" in Watt per m3. That is a very interesting parameter.
Let's have a look at the 4 wheels from Johann:

Gera
Dia. 4,65 feet -> 1,42m
Th. 4 inches -> 0,1m
Power -> 5,68W
Volume -> 0,16m3
P/m3 -> 35,5w/m3

Draschwitz
Dia. 9,3 feet -> 2,84m
Th. 6 inches -> 0,15m
Puissance -> 66,3W
Volume -> 0,95m3
P/m3 -> 69,8w/m3

Merseberg
Dia. 11,2 feet -> 3,4m
Th. 11,2 inches -> 0,28m
Power -> 124W
Volume -> 2,57m3
P/m3 -> 48,2w/m3

Weissenstein
Dia. 12 feet -> 3,66m
Th. 18 inches -> 0,45m
Power -> 137W
Power -> 4,73m3
P/m3 -> 29w/m3


My explanation about the different results is:
The first wheel was just a proof of concept. Quick and dirty, no optimisation.
The ennemies of Johann have said that nothing could be done with so little power. Johann has heard, he has built the second one which is, this time, optimised.
The ennemies of Johann have said that it is moved by a spring. Johann has listen one more time, and has had the idea of the wheel turning in both way. But this wheel is a compromise. And like every compromise, he has to give something.
The coefficiant is dropping but Johann has suceeded.
In the fourth wheel, the coefficiant is dropping again. I think that he has just been too confident about what he could archieve with the materials available at that time.

Anyway, let's take the best of the wheel, the second one, the one that has been optimised without compromise (the one that is probably deeply buried in the MT).
Let's says that with the technology of today (light materials, ball bearing, more density weights ...), we could archieve an improvement of factor 2 (very pessimistic suggestion from my point of view).

Our wheel will have a power per volume factor of 140 Watt per m3.

Let's compare this with a nuclear power plant (I know, it is sounding ridiculous).

The nuclear power plant that is close to my house is a two reactors system with a max power of 2,4GW (1,2 GW per reactor). But if you look at the power really delivered, the average through the last 10 years is very constant and is 2GW (1 per reactor).
The reactors are "small" but they need two gigantic cooling towers (one per reactor). Those towers are almost like cylinders. They have a diameter of around 100m and a high of around 160m. The volume of one tower is 1,26 million m3 (I do not take into account the other building of the nuclear power plant because a gigantic Bessler machine would also need a generator and some other stuff).
If you divide the power generated by one reactor through the volume of one tower, you find 800 Watt/m3.
We find a factor 5,7 in favor of the nuclear power plant. It is not that much. It means that an equivalent Bessler powered plant would have a volume 5,7 bigger than the nuclear power plant. Whith the advantage that it does not have to be placed closed to a river. And it is assuming that we can only improve the efficiency of the Bessler machine by a factor of 2.

Let's compare this with a solar installation.

A friend of mine has solar panel on his roof. He has 30m2 of solar panel (cost around 15.000 Euros) and he is generated on the average 4000kWh per year.
This gives an average of 450 Watts per hour permanently.
Which means that you could replace those panels by a 3 m3 machine that will cost much less than the 15.000 Euros of the solar installation and that could be use also by people that do not have a roof facing the sun (supposing that they have some space in their basemenet).


My conclusion is that the wattage of the Bessler machine is not small.

I am sorry for this long post.

[primemignonite]

Genmurphy, what a fascinating little study!

Thank you.

Seen from those perspectives, Bessler's wheels are even more interesting now, as "mere" commercial propositions. Excellent!

Only your second post; so may I too say "welcome"?

I cannot speak for all, but if I could, I would say that we look forward to your future postings, if any.

(Also, it would be handy if we might address you by some nom de plume?)

James

[ovyyus]

Correction: On the previous page I incorrectly stated the required thickness of a 12 foot diameter wheel able to deliver 10HP. If output is based on 150W per 1.5 feet thickness (overestimate of Weissenstein wheel output) the correct thickness value for 10HP output is about 75 feet.

Of course, if we assume that Bessler's design is not limited by some physical principle and we assume the application of that design might achieve a greater power to volume ratio with modern materials and construction, the above figure of 75 feet thickness for 10HP output might be decreased.

[bluesgtr44]

My conclusion is that the wattage of the Bessler machine is not small.

I am sorry for this long post.

Welcome Murph! Nice presentation. There is a lot of speculation on these results in that the output of each of his wheels were decidedly proportionate within their individual dimensions. Basically, it seems as though you are assuming that all of his wheels were running at....say....80% of maximum power potential, and we don't really know that.

He mentions that he could put more than one wheel on a long axle and get more power, but at what rate? It wouldn't make sense that two on an axle will give 2X the power. It would be a graded result as more and more wheels were applied to a single axle, I would think.....

Being a realist and seeing the amount of consumption our appetites have grown to, I'm not really convinced that the Bessler wheel is going to be the cure all for our power needs.....it's what we learn from it that I'm really interested in. Where do we go from there?


Steve

[genmurphy]

To primemignonite:

>Only your second post; so may I too say "welcome"?
Thanks.

>(Also, it would be handy if we might address you by some nom de plume?)
I do not understand what you mean here. Could you give more explanation ?

To Steve:

>Basically, it seems as though you are assuming that all of his wheels were
> running at....say....80% of maximum power potential, and we don't really
>know that.

Well, I have never say that. It is the nuclear power plant next to my home that is running at 80% of its maximum.

>He mentions that he could put more than one wheel on a long axle
>and get more power, but at what rate? It wouldn't make sense that
>two on an axle will give 2X the power

I can guarantee you that if you put two of those wheels on the same axle, you would get the double power. Anyway, if I am wrong (not a lot of chance), you can still do it electrically. Just put an electric generator on each of the wheels (instead of one on the double wheel. I assume here that the wheel will be use to produce electricity ) and combine their outputs. You will get double power.

>Being a realist and seeing the amount of consumption our appetites
>have grown to, I'm not really convinced that the Bessler wheel is
>going to be the cure all for our power needs
If we want a future, we will have to combine all the possible renewable sources of energy. The wheel might be just one of them.

[MC]

Great genmurphy,

It's an honour to push your green button!

[primemignonite]

genmurphy asks: ">(Also, it would be handy if we might address you by some nom de plume?)
I do not understand what you mean here. Could you give more explanation ?"

Sorry, I did not mean to be cryptic.

Do you have a name under which you write?

James

[genmurphy]

Thanks for all your positive feedbacks.

to primemignonite
>Do you have a name under which you write?
Genmurphy :-)

I want to stay anonymous for now...

[turulato]

genmurphy:

What you say makes perfect sense. Horse power is measured in torque and torque is measured in ft/lbs. Therefore if one wheel outputs 2,000 ft/lbs., it makes perfect sense that two wheels will give you 4,000 ft/lbs., simple physics.

Bill;

Also if you have 1,000 lbs. result difference from the shifting weights at the perimeter of the wheel on a 20 ft. dia. wheel that means that your output is 10,000 ft/lbs. of torque. RPM plays a factor also, this is an elusive one as we really don't know what the final RPM is on any size wheel. Take Patricks's wheel for example, the wheel is about 20" in dia. and it revolves at 18 RPM. Yet Bessler's was reported at around 50 RPM and it was considerably bigger than Patrick's. Like I said, it is an elusive factor. The truth is we don't know.
As far as the wheel being 75' wide for a mere 10 hp, maybe is true if you use 1 oz. weights :-)

Primo

Don't worry about genmurphy's name, this is the internet and we are all anonymous to a certain extent. Who is to say that this site was not created by the MIB and Scott is just the handler :-) (just food for thought for the paranoid) .......although.......I could be right!!!!
Hahahahahaha.

Regards

Turulato

[ovyyus]

...As far as the wheel being 75' wide for a mere 10 hp, maybe is true if you use 1 oz. weights :-)

I think you may have missed my point. My calculation is based on the known attributes of Bessler's Weissenstein wheel as reported by first-hand witnesses, ie; 12 feet diameter, 1.5 feet thick, 26RPM unloaded, 20RPM loaded. I can't guess what was inside it.

The only other quantity that remains in question is the actual output power of this wheel. My estimate places output power at about 75 Watts, others prefer a higher estimate of perhaps double that. A simple calculation, based on the higher estimate power to volume ratio, suggests that Bessler's Weissenstein wheel would need to be about 75 feet thick in order to deliver 10HP.

If my estimate of the actual output power of this particular wheel is closer to the truth then required wheel thickness in order to achieve 10HP output is about 150 feet.

[turulato]

I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification Bill.

Your friendly neighborhood turulato.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Murph....I didn't mean 80% specifically. My point was that your assumption in math is based on the performance of all 4 wheels were equal, it could be 60% or 70% or whatever....but, we really don't know what the load was compared to the potential of what each individual wheel may or may not have been able to do. He may have maxed out the first two one directional wheels by nessecity and then held back a bit on the two bi-directional wheels for demonstrational purposes.....we really don't know and any math along these lines are purely speculative of what was seen and demonstrated.

Correct me here if I am wrong. A 15ft. axle with one wheel on it can produce "X" amount of usable output. So, we put another wheel on it and with all the external forces that are available to assail themselves onto this, it will not be 2X the power. Maybe 1.8-9 at best, but you will not get 100% efficiency.

Even tying a generator to this is going to drag it down....it will still only be able to achieve the maximum amount of power that the configuration inside the wheel can physically overcome. And as Bessler says, the power of this is dependent on the diameter and the weights....


Steve

[genmurphy]

Hey Murph....I didn't mean 80% specifically. My point was that your assumption in math is based on the performance of all 4 wheels were equal, it could be 60% or 70% or whatever

The only assumption I have made in my first post is that we could improve the output wattage of the Bessler wheel by a factor of 2. That is all. All the wattage data about the four wheels are coming from this site:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... eel_Output

Correct me here if I am wrong. A 15ft. axle with one wheel on it can produce "X" amount of usable output. So, we put another wheel on it and with all the external forces that are available to assail themselves onto this, it will not be 2X the power. Maybe 1.8-9 at best, but you will not get 100% efficiency.

If you put two wheel, you will get two time the power. That is all. It has nothing to do with efficiency here.

Even tying a generator to this is going to drag it down....

I see here that we have a big misunderstanding problem.
I try to explain it in another way:
We have one wheel that is giving 50W of mechanical power. You put a electrical generator and you get 45W of electrical power (10 % loss in the generator). If we take two of those wheels on the same axle, they are going to produce 100 W of mechanical power or 90W of electrical power with the same generator (10% loss). So with two wheels, you have doubled your output (from 45 to 90W).
What I have said is that, if you do not believe in this, just leave the two wheels on separated axle and take two electrical generators. They will both delivered 45W, that you can combine without any loss to get 90W.
That is the way it is working in a wind mill farm.

[primemignonite]

Whao! Hold on here!

Electrical:

Two batteries connected in-parallel provide twice the electron flow (amperage) at the same pressure (voltage) as each is rated for.

Two batteries connected in-series provide twice the pressure (voltage) at the same electron flow (amperage) as each is rated for.

An analogy drawn between fluid in a pipe, and electrons in a wire roughly holds good except for the mass component that a fluid possesses. In both cases, friction (resistance) is a factor, but different in ways significant. Of course there is no analogy possible to fluids in pipes with electro-magnetic field effects, such as reluctance, impedance and inductance.

Mechanical:

Whether connected in-parallel (with shafts connected by chain or gearing), or series (with shafts butted), and as long as the connecting ratios remain 1:1, the work-out ratings will add (assuming each to be in-phase respectively).

In this way analogies made between mechanical and electrical configurations, whether as parallel or series connections, is a false one, however, when reduced to watts or watts/unit of time, then, analogies can be made that will hold as valid.

[I call upon The Brain Trust for corrections, if anything of what I've stated above is found to be false, and, I am treading thin ice here - not being an engineer - and sort-of making it up as I imagine things to be actually.)

**********************************************************************************************************************************************
Also, as Ovyyus points out (I think he did), all of this is but terrific guess-work we're doing. In order to have anything approaching solid upon which to further cogitate (or ruminate), an actual working Bessler Wheel will have to be gotten hold of!

Let's do it!

James