Posted by Rainer (210.86.1.43) on February 04, 2003 at 19:18:11:
In Reply to: One more Bessler Offence posted by David on February 04, 2003 at 17:28:50:
Interesting point, I also had my thoughts about this. He could have used something like a "Watt's regulator" , but I think that was not necessary in his case. As a 'gravity converter' it is depending on the speed the weights need to fall .. and that's a constant .. right, so automatically we have our maximum speed the wheel can reach.
I try to remember, I think one of his wheels was around 3 meters in diameter and supposed to run at about 50 revolution/minute.
That gives theoretical 0.15 seconds time for each of the 8 weights per revolution.
Lets say they were allowed to fall half the diameter of the wheel, from the top to the horizontal center .. that would be around 1.5 meters ... how long does an object need to fall this distance ( from rest position, air resistance ignored ) ...
0.15 seconds .. interesting :)
Ok, maybe I'm just totally wrong here :) otherwise as usual
Have Fun,
Rainer
: Something else that doesn't quite sit well with me. If Bessler did what he said, he would have basically reversed the laws of equalibrium, and with each cycle of his wheel there would be a gain in potential, resulting in an increase in velocity. It was stated however his wheel ran at a consistent rpm. If he had an internal mechanism that dumped the excess gain, it would have to have been fairly sophisticated. Let's say his machine did do this. The other problem then arises that if the wheel had just enough energy to maintain its constant rpm-it would not have enough energy to maintain this rpm when a load was put on the machine, such as the raising of weights. Unless another switching type mechanism was also within the wheel, making this all very complicated and very-very sophisticated.
: Comments?