One of Bessler's Wheels ?

[Jim_L]

@All,
I have spent a couple of years going over Bessler's work.
I was relieved the day I saw someone post that one of his wheels sounded different because it used a different principle.
I am currently building his water wheel. It is something that would be capable of producing some energy, but it will be limited. Such as, if you have a garden in your back yard and want it powered by Free Energy, this would do it.
Of course, since it is something that was built 300 years ago, it can not be patented. And this would allow anyone who likes them to build their own ...
The attached picture shows an assembly jig with the parts for the outer wheel layed out.
As time goes by, I will post information on why I believe it will work. This design has a lot of potential. It helps to understand hydraulic theory as it will be using water.

Jim

[broli]

good luck and have fun

[Jim_L]

good luck and have fun

Thanks Broli

Here is something to think about. It goes back to Bessler being a clock maker.
3 of his drawings have the number 12 in common. Mt's 21, 60 and 137.
If you connect the dots (points) on Mt 137, you come up with 12 sides.
Mt 21 shows 12 levers, and Mt 60 shows 12 daiphrams filled with something.
That should give a person a basic outline of his wheel. And knowing he used
6 and 8 weights, a simple modification.

Jim

[Peter Lindemann]

The One That Works

Hey Jim,

Actually, in my 10 years of study and model building on Bessler's ideas, I came to the conclusion that there are TWO SOLUTIONS to the problem. Each working model uses the principle of "shifting weights", but these first order motions cannot drive the wheel. What experimental observation teaches is that the movement of the weights "cannot do work FOR the wheel, but they can do work ON the wheel". Since gravity alone is a force that acts uniformly on the wheel, the work done ON the wheel by the moving weights is what must create the imbalance. This is a second order motion. The "dry" solution uses the acceleration of gravity and the transfer of momentum by "impact" to drive the wheel. These are the noisy wheels, with lots of banging sounds. The quieter wheel uses the weights to open and close bellows that displace water, and so buoyancy is the driving force in the "wet" solution. MT 61 is the closest to a working design in the whole group of drawings, but it does not show the bellows in the correct positions and it does not correctly represent how they interact with each other.

Good luck with your experiments.

Peter

[Jim_L]

Hey Jim,

Actually, in my 10 years of study and model building on Bessler's ideas, I came to the conclusion that there are TWO SOLUTIONS to the problem. Each working model uses the principle of "shifting weights", but these first order motions cannot drive the wheel. What experimental observation teaches is that the movement of the weights "cannot do work FOR the wheel, but they can do work ON the wheel". Since gravity alone is a force that acts uniformly on the wheel, the work done ON the wheel by the moving weights is what must create the imbalance. This is a second order motion. The "dry" solution uses the acceleration of gravity and the transfer of momentum by "impact" to drive the wheel. These are the noisy wheels, with lots of banging sounds. The quieter wheel uses the weights to open and close bellows that displace water, and so buoyancy is the driving force in the "wet" solution. MT 61 is the closest to a working design in the whole group of drawings, but it does not show the bellows in the correct positions and it does not correctly represent how they interact with each other.

Good luck with your experiments.

Peter

Hi Peter,
It is a very pleasant surprsie to meet someone who understands there were two different wheels.
I can easily explain the "clanging" wheel. It is a lot of work with limited potential.
I think Mt 24 actually best describes Bessler's concepts using bouyancy. I used to think he was shifting weights which he was, but Mt 24 is using bellows.
It shows one drawing a vacuum and one creating pressure. An active differential equation. By using the vacuum that multiple weights can create, this allows more water to be moved than compression alone would allow for.
Extremely ingenious by any standards.

Best Regards
Jim

[Jim_L]

Dr. Lindeman,
I thought I would let you know the clanging wheel of Bessler used scissors.
It is described in one of his drawings. The lever that extends the scissors is not the same lever that retracts it.

Jim

edited to add;
I have tolertated harasment from ab hammmer and rlortie because that is what they know.
It does take time to understand Bessler. Lazy people need not apply.

[freepenguin]

Have you checked about F.M Chalkalis Energy multiplier and Gravity motor section on Penwiki.

Any practical gravity motor needs two wheels, one is the trigger (usually DC motor or solenoid) that accelerates the wheel and maintain the optimum speed, the second one is the driven (main rotating wheel). Successful gravity motors I've found has COP 10+ to 50+ so far. The trigger must consume energy of course. What's interesting is the main rotating wheel generates huge mechanical energy. So overall COP becomes over unity.

You just need to build a main wheel of which static frictional torque is below the DC motor's torque at optimum range.

I've had my own gravity motor with one wheel and it turned out a failure because it's close loop system. I abandoned the gravity motor which uses off-balance mechanism.

I spent hundreds hours to figure out why and how the gravity motor produces extra energy order of two magnitude.(1 to 99 ratio maybe more) Classical mechanics have all the laws but it fails to explain it because it only deals with close system. Is it deliberate attempt or total ignorance by the mainstream physicist? I don't know.

What is the torque of Earth at equator? It's simple question but university physics book I read, hours of internet search leads to the question mark. It does have huge amount of kinetic energy, which means the torque must exist. It's pure energy independent from gravity.

[Jim_L]

Have you checked about F.M Chalkalis Energy multiplier and Gravity motor section on Penwiki.

Any practical gravity motor needs two wheels, one is the trigger (usually DC motor or solenoid) that accelerates the wheel and maintain the optimum speed, the second one is the driven (main rotating wheel). Successful gravity motors I've found has COP 10+ to 50+ so far. The trigger must consume energy of course. What's interesting is the main rotating wheel generates huge mechanical energy. So overall COP becomes over unity.

You just need to build a main wheel of which static frictional torque is below the DC motor's torque at optimum range.

I've had my own gravity motor with one wheel and it turned out a failure because it's close loop system. I abandoned the gravity motor which uses off-balance mechanism.

I spent hundreds hours to figure out why and how the gravity motor produces extra energy order of two magnitude.(1 to 99 ratio maybe more) Classical mechanics have all the laws but it fails to explain it because it only deals with close system. Is it deliberate attempt or total ignorance by the mainstream physicist? I don't know.

What is the torque of Earth at equator? It's simple question but university physics book I read, hours of internet search leads to the question mark. It does have huge amount of kinetic energy, which means the torque must exist. It's pure energy independent from gravity.

Hi FP,
It seems with the potential torque the Earth has, the lack of acceleration could be why it produces no useable energy.
With Bessler, I do believe he did come up with 2 distinct ways of using gravity. While the observation has been made that gravity does act on all things equally, engineering allows for the manipulation of the laws of physics.
Bessler's "clanging" wheel would have used a levered weight acting on scissors. As such, if one section opens, then all sections oen. This allows for an amplification of a weights potential because movement of one weight would be greater than the weight causing it's movement. Something required to have a chance of over unity. It does take being familiar with trig to understand the nuances that would allow for such a design to work. You see, a part of the math would go like this, with 8 sections, a section could open 2 1/2 inches which would cause the weight to move 20 inches. The lever causing this to happen would only move 10 inches. This is something that could work. What I find interesting is with such a movement, what is the useable potential ? What I mean by this is if a weight goes from 5 inches from center of wheel to 25 inches from center of wheel, how much extra energy is that ?
This is where given the time to properly evaluate and test idea's such as this, it could validate Bessler's claims while demonstrating different ways of considering how engineering can allow for potential to be developed differently than previously believed.

Jim

[freepenguin]

Hi FP,
It seems with the potential torque the Earth has, the lack of acceleration could be why it produces no useable energy.
With Bessler, I do believe he did come up with 2 distinct ways of using gravity. While the observation has been made that gravity does act on all things equally, engineering allows for the manipulation of the laws of physics.
Bessler's "clanging" wheel would have used a levered weight acting on scissors. As such, if one section opens, then all sections oen. This allows for an amplification of a weights potential because movement of one weight would be greater than the weight causing it's movement. Something required to have a chance of over unity. It does take being familiar with trig to understand the nuances that would allow for such a design to work. You see, a part of the math would go like this, with 8 sections, a section could open 2 1/2 inches which would cause the weight to move 20 inches. The lever causing this to happen would only move 10 inches. This is something that could work. What I find interesting is with such a movement, what is the useable potential ? What I mean by this is if a weight goes from 5 inches from center of wheel to 25 inches from center of wheel, how much extra energy is that ?
This is where given the time to properly evaluate and test idea's such as this, it could validate Bessler's claims while demonstrating different ways of considering how engineering can allow for potential to be developed differently than previously believed.

Jim

@ Jim,

You are right. A small input creates bigger output which means over unity by using leverage. The two stage oscillator by an inventor uses two levers. One lever is a trigger. The COP ratio is around 1:3. He disclosed information how to scale down or up the device. You can find replications from tiny one to couple hundreds pounds one on Youtube.

It seems with the potential torque the Earth has, the lack of acceleration could be why it produces no useable energy.

w = 2xPi rad / (24 x 3600s) = 7.27 x 10^-5 rad/s
angular velocity of Earth is 7.27 x 10^-5 = 0.0000727 rad/s
The torque of Earth is huge I know it because the kinetic energy of Earth is easy to calculate: K = 1/2 x Inertia x angular velocity^2. Inertia of sphere = 2/5 x mass x radius^2.
My brief calculation of the kinetic energy of Earth is 7.153 x 10^22 kW. (10^3 kW = 1 MW).

I like to say a rotating wheel at constant speed has usable kinetic energy. If not cars won't run on the road. Absolute torque is proportional to kinetic energy of rotating object.
We can measure the torque in simple devices, which I'm going to do. The faster it rotates, the input energy to maintain its rotation gets less.

We never been fair chance to discuss about over unity principals in nature. The scientific communities still refuse to accept the facts. For how long?

[Jim_L]

@ Jim,

You are right. A small input creates bigger output which means over unity by using leverage. The two stage oscillator by an inventor uses two levers. One lever is a trigger. The COP ratio is around 1:3. He disclosed information how to scale down or up the device. You can find replications from tiny one to couple hundreds pounds one on Youtube.


w = 2xPi rad / (24 x 3600s) = 7.27 x 10^-5 rad/s
angular velocity of Earth is 7.27 x 10^-5 = 0.0000727 rad/s
The torque of Earth is huge I know it because the kinetic energy of Earth is easy to calculate: K = 1/2 x Inertia x angular velocity^2. Inertia of sphere = 2/5 x mass x radius^2.
My brief calculation of the kinetic energy of Earth is 7.153 x 10^22 kW. (10^3 kW = 1 MW).

I like to say a rotating wheel at constant speed has usable kinetic energy. If not cars won't run on the road. Absolute torque is proportional to kinetic energy of rotating object.
We can measure the torque in simple devices, which I'm going to do. The faster it rotates, the input energy to maintain its rotation gets less.

We never been fair chance to discuss about over unity principals in nature. The scientific communities still refuse to accept the facts. For how long?

< We never been fair chance to discuss about over unity principals in nature. The scientific communities still refuse to accept the facts. For how long? >

It's not just the scientific community. Even supporters of gravity power discredit it.
I do have my own idea I will pursue instead of Bessler. It's funny though. the Arache build group said I am retarded because I believed that Bessler used resistance to conserve momentum. Oh well.

Jim

[Jim_L]

freepenguin,
This is what I am talking about. A weighted lever moving upwards creates resistance. By using this potential, a weight on scissors can be retracted.
At the same time, an opposing lever can "drop" also extending a different weight. Opposing behaviors that create an over balance.
The basic math is the imbalance between the 2 weighted levers would consume between 14 and 50% of the force/torque generated by the over balance. The real kicker is that when the 2 weighted levers are near the plane of the axle, they will consume the least amount of energy because of their imbalance. Possibly even cancel each other out for no loss of force/torque initially.
With more than 8 sections or possibly a more advanced concept, then the greater potential for a sustained imbalnce. That's where being able to research and pursue and idea without harassment would be nice. But this is the real world and egos need to be satisfied.

[freepenguin]

Links for the leverage devices:

Veljko Milkovic - Home Page - Official presentation of the researcher and inventor Veljko Milkovic

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-motion-7.html

A small replication by a forum member. It turns on LED light bulbs.
&#x202a;Milkovic / Bedini lighting 12 LEDs&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


Two gravity motors:

F.M.CHALKALIS ENERGY MULTIPLIER
(COP is 1:50)

&#x202a;The rotation due to deflection of weights_2. Gravity wheel.&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
(COP is 1:5)

A list of known gravity motors on the net.
Directory:Gravity Motors - PESWiki

Why and how these devices have COP greater than 1?
Go to Professor Kanarev's website
Professor Ph. M. Kanarev, Krasnodar
Click 'Impulse Power Secrets' link to download a zip file. It contains a MS Word file.

---

My study direction is to build a small gravity motor which has one flywheel and one electric motor as the trigger.

[freepenguin]

@Jim

But this is the real world and egos need to be satisfied.

Exactly. People in FE field do the same. I don't blame them because of the society we live in.

My goal is to have a FE generator for myself first. And then, once I have enough data and working theory: 10,000 hours of test time, I'll disclose it as is on the net. Applying a patent means I'll give up my right under authority. Why should I need permit to use my own idea and build machines? Will the energy companies let it out?

I thought I would be able to build my unique device for years. I abandoned it lately after finding near identical prototypes on the net. I rather found and analyzed already working prototypes and theory. Few gravity motor fits right on.

The following is a brief building plan I've collected for a prototype gravity motor.

• A small DC motor has usable torque range (minimum to maximum) and power rating.
• Decent bearings from well-known manufacturers have bearing friction torque on data sheet. By using it, one can estimate how much weight the flywheel it needs to produce desired mechanical energy output: the torque at the flywheel shaft and speed (rpm).
  Or simple computer program can produces a data table that shows:
  bearing friction T(torque) - flywheel weight - maximum (static) friction T - minimum (kinetic) friction T - mechanical energy (M.e) - COP (DC motor power vs M.e).
• Convert the extra mechanical energy for electricity: coupling with a conventional AC/DC generator or build own generator.

[freepenguin]

Excerpt from 'Impulse Power Secrets' by Kanarev Philipp

We do not pay attention to the fact that the initial energy, which was given to the rotor at the time of its run start, is preserved in it in the form of kinetic energy of its rotation; we do not think how to use it. In Fig. 11, a diagram of the change of momentum of the rotor is shown.

At the moment of the rotor rotation start, its starting torque M overcomes resistance in the form of the moments of mechanical resistances -Mc and in the form of inertial torque -Mi. As the rotor stats its uniform rotation, inertial torque becomes positive +Mi and does not resist the rotor rotation; it aids its rotation (Fig. 11). It appears from this that in order to support the uniform rotation of the rotor, it is unnecessary to expend energy continuously and to support a constant value of operating torque Mp. Impulse supply of energy, which will increase operating torque Mp for a short time up to the value that is designated by letter A1, is enough. Simultaneously, the value of inertial torque will be increased up to the value that is designated by letter B1 (Fig. 11). At this moment, energy costs for the rotary drive will be decreased almost to zero, and it will become possible to turn off energy supply to the rotor shaft, because it will keep rotating for some time(B1K1) because of inertia (Fig. 11). When its inertial torque is decreased to a value, which is designated by letter K1, the automatics will turn on the external power supply.

Pi = Vi x Ai => k x m x r^2 x w => k x Vo x Ao = Po (44)
Po >= Pi

The original expression of (44) uses Vi for U1 (voltage), A1 for I1 respectively.

[Jim_L]

Free,
With what I've been working on, my math went in a different direction.
I think for large scale energy generation, the folks at ITER might have the best opportunity to provide it. They use a process where they expose water to lithium to generate the tritium they need. The info is on their web site.
For gravity power, after a while I started considering 5% of mass as useable force as something attainable. In a way, a gravity powered device is fighting itself because if a weight is not creating an over balance, it is dead weight.
With Bessler, I just find it interesting that someone could have existed that had such an understanding as he did of mechanical behavior so early on in the Industrial Revolution.


Jim