Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

broli · Post by **broli** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:18 pm

Alan has given you the worst adivce of your life. I will not go on with this you will find out yourself later on. You guys keep amaze me it's it the NOW that is important not the tomorrow.

There are so many promising OPEN SOURCE projects going on but you people think you can become rich out of something that needs licensing to build and only has to be build once? Are you people insane or stupid.

I already gave you a suggestion that would give you a steady income that as you say can pay your bills and taxes but no just ignore it and be greedy in life let's see what you will achieve with that.

The fact that this makes it even more ridiculous is that we are not even talking about a concrete device.

BAR · Post by **BAR** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:29 pm

Hey I am not close minded. Broli you show me instances of open source that the inventor WAS prosperous (not from software) then I will consider it. I want details not rumors. ;)

BAR · Post by **BAR** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:39 pm

Ok this is probably against my better judgement, but I will give more clues. I have done extensive analysis of how Besslers wheel would behave (without uncertain software), but pen and paper. Boli expects me to owe him something but I do this from my humanity. :):):)

Now I am not including some input values that would give away how the machine works, only the output in how these estimates are calculated.
Ok in any overbalance wheel you need at least 8 weights to exceed a breakeven threshold. This is what is required for the restoring force to make the system loop above zero and become self regenerative. That is of course with no excessive friction losses. However, this is the least efficient number of weights that works, with the most practical efficiency leverage of at least 10:1. I estimate that Bessler used at least 12 to 16 weights because more weights after that is a diminishing gain of returns. You would be better with parallel machines or the "oval type". Now considering his machine lifted 70 lbs, if he used 8 weights the total working mass (not including the support structure) is 2147 lbs and each weight is 268lbs. This is the values relative to number of weights which will generate 70 lbs lift:

10 weights 83.2lbs each with a total of 832lbs.

12 weights 49.4lbs each with a total of 592 lbs.

14 weights 35.1lbs each with a total of 491lbs.

16 weights 27.3lbs each with a total of 436lbs.

18 weights 22.3lbs each with a total of 401lbs.

As you can see after 16 weights it becomes diminishing returns for the gain.

Gravitational engines are VERY inefficient. The maximum for a wheel design with infinite number of weights can not exceed 32% efficiency. So if an average home requires some 30 kilowatts, then you would need a ferris wheel sized Bessler wheel to power your house! Being conservative with an 80% efficiency electrical generator you need at least 86,000lbs of your working mass. Start building now! :)

Honestly a self regenerative gravitational engine would be nice for machines that require very low power, or extra ordinary accuracy in clocks. Atomic clocks are not the easiest thing to maintain and are very complex, however a self regenerative gravity engine after the compensation for the moon and sun would be easily billionth or trillionth second accuracy.

broli · Post by **broli** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm

What's wrong with software?

But that's the whole point now isn't it? You assume you are the only special one in the world just like the people that convinced you are the ONE's. But in reality you people have nothing to stand on. No business plan or experience no previous owned patents or experience regarding them and to top it off the ignorance that this is as easy as selling a fridge.

Dear god do you know how much you will suffer after getting a patent. Those x pages of paper are the easy part.

This is why I recommend open source so much. You need squat of anything. Just put it on a nice clean simple website with a donation link. Meanwhile try and sell it locally. But hey don't listen to me I bet those crippled people that convinced you know what they are talking about.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:43 pm

Gravitational engines are VERY inefficient. The maximum for a wheel design with infinite number of weights can not exceed 32% efficiency.

Ah, how do you figure that? With a wheel that needs over 100 percent efficiency to self maintain? I'd check with some of the experts on here as well. I'm pretty sure the total weight you gave exceeds what was reported for the wheel in question.

justsomeone · Post by **justsomeone** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:43 pm

ANSWER his question Broli! If you are so confident someone would still make millions with the open source approach than I'm sure you would gladly lend someone a cool million in advance of open source. Put your money where your mouth is. And by the way YOUR the one that is ignorant!!!!!!!

Fletcher · Post by **Fletcher** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm

BAR .. have you read the very long thread authored by Ken_Behrendt ? - there he formulates a theory based on Einstein physics using the assumption that moving/falling weights in a gravity field have a different mass to the same weights rising against the field & that that is the source of the gravity energy gradient proposed to drive his gravity wheel.

If you search for his name I'm pretty sure his signature at the end of each post [so pick anyone] contained the rest mass v's moving mass formula & his workings - with your background you may find his conclusions interesting given your current direction, if they have any commonality ?

docfeelsgood · Post by **docfeelsgood** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:10 pm

Broli ;

YOU talk like a man with a paper ass hole !!!!!!!!!!

AB Hammer · Post by **AB Hammer** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:17 pm

broli wrote:Alan has given you the worst adivce of your life. I will not go on with this you will find out yourself later on. You guys keep amaze me it's it the NOW that is important not the tomorrow.

There are so many promising OPEN SOURCE projects going on but you people think you can become rich out of something that needs licensing to build and only has to be build once? Are you people insane or stupid.

I already gave you a suggestion that would give you a steady income that as you say can pay your bills and taxes but no just ignore it and be greedy in life let's see what you will achieve with that.

The fact that this makes it even more ridiculous is that we are not even talking about a concrete device.

broli

I still, IMO think you are a corporate spy! Talk people into giving it away so, your "friends" the corporates, can take it and run with it and the inventor can just pound sand.

BAR · Post by **BAR** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:00 pm

Ah, how do you figure that? With a wheel that needs over 100 percent efficiency to self maintain? I'd check with some of the experts on here as well. I'm pretty sure the total weight you gave exceeds what was reported for the wheel in question.

I gave many total weights, pick 1 LOL! The total diminishes by the number of weights. :)

Out put of the maxium torque is relative to what you would expect from weight generating watts from the most efficient weight. You can not get more than 746 watts of energy from 550 lbs of mass on earth. :) This efficiency is from weights in a wheel that obeys the equation: Weight 2 - [ Weight1 x Leverage1/Leverage2] x sin. Sorry I did ask how to show equations here on my first day. Sorry for confusion. Perhaps photos? This formula gives the torques of each weight that is present in every angle around a wheel. Maximun torque or force is +- 90 degrees or 3 and 9 O'clock. Minimum is +-180degrees or 6 and 12 O'clock. This efficiency I am talking about is power output relative to the total working weight of the machine. Just because the machine is "overunity", does not mean its output relative to work done by weight is infinite, far from it.

BAR .. have you read the very long thread authored by Ken Brendt ? - there he formulates a theory based on Einstein physics using the assumption that moving/falling weights in a gravity field have a different mass to the same weights rising against the field & that that is the source of the gravity energy gradient proposed to drive his gravity wheel.

If you search for his name I'm pretty sure his signature at the end of each post [so pick anyone] contained the rest mass v's moving mass formula & his workings - with your background you may find his conclusions interesting given your current direction, if they have any commonality ?

Thanks Fletcher, I have never heard of him that I can recall, but I have heard of that theory. It totally disobeys conservation laws of mass but strangely not energy. I have never followed its math through so honestly I can not judge it, but my opinion is it is wrong. If you have references I would be glad to review them. :)

broli · Post by **broli** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:04 pm

Alan IMO you're a corporate idiot.

AB Hammer · Post by **AB Hammer** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:41 pm

Broli

I have posted several wheel designs so people can try them, some might even be able to work with some tweaking. Why have you not built one? Or are you waiting for one to be delivered at your door step from corporate headquarters? LOL

DrWhat · Post by **DrWhat** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:57 pm

You guys are funny (!).

In the past there has been so much talk about the jockey yet no one even has the horse yet!

Fletcher · Post by **Fletcher** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:30 pm

BAR .. used the advanced search function "rest mass"

Ken_Behrendt theory - see quotation in signature bottom of post for his formula found 7/6/06.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... mass#36032

In a few other of his posts he goes into specifics of Einstein's Relativity, quantum effects & Ke.

justsomeone · Post by **justsomeone** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:48 pm

Broli says " give it away for mankind. "

Here's a fact. Broli you will NEVER discover a free energy device!

Broli, What is your plan B to help save mankind? You better get busy.

Oh wait.... I forgot... if it has to come out of your pocket then that will never happen. If it takes your time volunteering for a charity then that will never happen.

You have already made this clear.

So I guess you better keep begging others to do the giving.

Your a hypocrite.

BesslerWheel.com

Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?

re: Why don't Perpetual Gravity Wheels Work ?