Bessler , Karl I! The fat lady is gonna sing , haters bring it I'm not skeered .

[johnny874]

  @all,
MoRo answered the dynamic motion question in his thread, centripetal force yields overunity.
M x V squared divided by R equals inertia.
This means that a 1kg weight moving @2ms with a radius of 1 meter would have the force of 4kg,s.
And if leverage increases it,s force 2 or 3 times, then it would have 8 to 12kg,s of force.
What ever moment I had came anx went a couple of years ago. This is more like a second job but it doesn,t come with much more than a heacache.

        Johnny874

[WilbyInebriated]

In most perpetual motion machines, an initial velocity is imparted to a wheel and it keeps going by virtue of momentum and kinetic energy stored in its motion, but in the case of the Bessler wheel, the initial velocity is not storing energy in kinetic energy of the wheel, but what it does instead is store energy internally by either compressing a spring or shifting weights to one side, which is a lot different.   

  yeah pffff... name one perpetual motion machine. your claim that "In most perpetual motion machines, an initial velocity is imparted to a wheel" is asinine. no such thing exists.

The main point is this:  the overbalance of the wheel occurs under motion and is a DYNAMIC PROCESS, not STATIC, so the wheel is OVERBALANCED only when in motion.      This point is very important because if anybody tries to think up overbalanced diagrams in a static configuration they will never find the solution.  I wasted so many hours thinking in Static mode until I realized this principle.   

the main point is this... you are wasting time and energy on a flawed principle based upon the flawed assumption that bessler was bona fide, when in all likelihood he was confused if not an outright liar. a bessler wheel has no more chance of working than say... a hydro differential pressure exchange system.

So, the way I imagine the wheel mechanism is quite simple.    Eight  pendulums, that only swing out to one side, and centrifugal forces displace them only under dynamic motion.   

so, looking at some alleged quote from bessler (even with the assumption that he is being truthful) tells us nothing. it's validity and veracity cannot be verified. and... we all know gravity is a conservative force.

I feel another eureka moment coming on.   

followed by yet another emotional low...

[johnny874]

  Wilby,
LMAO :-D
You just made the point be was trying to make about tne quote.
With a little push, the weights moving downward generate little inertia, with a more forceful push it will square the velocity imparted onto it.
The difference between 1 squared which is 1 and 2 squared which is 4 is 3.
1 extra ms adds 3 ms in inertial force.
It does matter.

    Johnny

[WilbyInebriated]

  Wilby,
LMAO :-D
You just made the point be was trying to make about tne quote.
With a little push, the weights moving downward generate little inertia, with a more forceful push it will square the velocity imparted onto it.
The difference between 1 squared which is 1 and 2 squared which is 4 is 3.
1 extra ms adds 3 ms in inertial force.
It does matter.

    Johnny

LMFAO indeed.... no it doesn't matter. or you would have a working wheel wouldn't you...

[EMdevices]

the main point is this... you are wasting time and energy on a flawed principle based upon the flawed assumption that bessler was bona fide, when in all likelihood he was confused if not an outright liar. a bessler wheel has no more chance of working than say... a hydro differential pressure exchange system.

Willby,   why do you say Bessler was  "confused"  and an "outright liar"?    Do you have any other info besides what's available at Besslerwheel.com  ?    In fact, it is not really his reputation that is on the line here, but that of great mathematicians and "scientists" of the time who witnessed the machine run and inspected it.  If it wasn't for such eyewitness accounts from such illustrious folk, I wouldn't have wasted any time on this.   


So, how do explain the machine outputting power to the water screw and slowing down to 20 rotations per minute from 26 when not loaded?  This demonstration was done not for a few minutes but DAYS!  The shaft bearings were exposed, no compressed air used, etc...    All this was performed in the presence of very skeptical folks with keen eyes.  The only thing they couldn't see was inside this light wooden frame wheel.  What was inside and what powered it?  Gravity?  something else? 

gravity is a conservative fource

yes it is, which makes this invention the more intriguing.   Recently I was introduced to the exploits of Eric Laithwaite, and watched the Christmas video where he demonstrates gyroscopes and raised a 40 lb gyroscope above his head "effortlessly",  and I have to say that's very impressive so I'm keeping an open mind.   If this invention works based on weights and gravity alone, it is because it is taking advantage of some dynamic imbalance, not static, although I just read that there was one wheel that had to be tied down so it wouldn't turn, so maybe it was a static imbalance as well.   very intriguing!




EM