Posted on Leave a comment

Ezekiel’s Wheel Reader Comments


1. Please have a look at:  and click ‘next’. It’s a type of waterwheel, but driven by pumping air at the bottom floater.

Thank you for the link.  
The problem with this type of wheel is that it takes more energy to pump the air into the bottom of the chamber than you get back from the buoyancy power imparted to the wheel.

2. Have you heard of the Kinetic Power Plant from Swiss, from a company called Rosch?


Has similarities to Ezekiels wheel. They are building a 100 kW prototype near the airport of Koln, Germany. I expect to go there beginning of 2015.

I’d love to hear more.

 I’ll come back to you with more.


Posted on Leave a comment

Ezekiel’s Wheen Calculations

Math is great, but actual physical tests are better if you can simulate the working principles closely enough.  There may be (and I suspect there are) things going on that the math isn’t taking into account.
Once you understand (and can physically prove) the working principles, you can do fine tuning to make an efficient machine… Maybe even one that is practical OU.

Here are some thoughts to address what I consider to be the main issues:

One of the things needed with any technology is setting standards so that people can talk to each other without confusion. Once there are standards, various tests and comments can be compared.  BTW, one person called it the EZ wheel; I liked that.
The biggest issue to overcome is the torque needed to force the air chambers into the water reservoir.  Here is an experiment that’ll help people understand the ‘water pressure’ issue… And try various things to reduce the pressure or help the wheel move against it.  

Ezekiel's Wheel Buoyancy / Weight 'Start Torque' Test

This is where some innovation is still required.  I have some ideas, which I’ll introduce shortly.  Anything we can do here will increase the efficiency of the wheel.

Some people (including me) have trouble conceptualizing mathematical equations and sometimes the math is miss-applied or incorrect for the forces involved.  Here’s a simple apparatus / experiment that’ll help people ‘get it right’ and perhaps ‘see’ things that will help.

Like I can see that most of the wheel’s torque occurs in about a 60° range, 30° above and below horizontal.  Buoyancy and weight have much less effect on the wheel’s power output above or below this ‘torque range’.

Soooo maybe… if we configure the wheel’s seals (and maybe water reservoir) so that the reservoir’s water pressure can pressurize (be common) up to 30° on the downward side, then the air chambers are entering the reservoir at a higher water level, where there is less water ‘back-pressure’.

Yes, we lose some torque on the downward side but it’s less effective torque anyway and we also lose back-pressure against the wheel.  
Also the buoyancy ‘back-torque’ on the downward side will be compensated by the buoyancy on the upward side; so except for friction, I think we end up with a net gain.

It may even be that this effect is already happening naturally in the real wheel, with the 1/16th inch clearances allowing limited water leakage, ‘filling’ and pressurizing the lower chambers on the downward side.  The pre-pressurization would allow the air chambers to enter the main reservoir with less back-pressure.

1. As for which side of the axle the water reservoir should be on.  I see no great advantage to torque either way, so I like the idea of having the axle out of the reservoir.

2. Yes, you do lose water out of the water chambers as they rise out of the water reservoir, but in my concept of ‘lowering the water level’ I specifically FILL the water chambers with a horizontal tube/pipe/channel that is on the outside of the wheel, at about the ‘D’ level.

Lowering the water level reduces the back-pressure without seriously affecting the Ezekiel’s Wheel torque, because (as you’ll see if you do the torque experiment) any buoyancy / weight beyond 30° above and below the horizontal to the axle quickly reduces to zero.  

3.  It also occurs to me, that since the most effective torque the wheel generates is in the 30° range above and below the horizontal of the axle, that keeping the water chambers SEALED (away from reservoir pressure) until they reach about ‘P’ on the wheel, may also mitigate the reservoir water pressure since the air chambers would be entering the reservoir at that higher level.

This would be a great modification to the ‘water pressure’ experiment (hole in the side of the bucket plugged with a cork).  I’m not sure what would be the best method to represent this aspect/idea… Maybe just lower the water level in the bucket appropriately?

A combination of the two above ideas would allow the water weight to generate torque on the downward side from about ‘D’ to ‘G’, the area between ‘H’ and ‘O’ would be pretty much neutral, buoyancy would take over at about ’17’ and generate torque until about ’20’ and the wheel would be neutral over the top.

‘Reverse’ water pressure would be the water pressure from ‘high level’ (about ‘T’) to the entry at about ’17’.  So we’d be having maximum torque with minimum back-pressure.

Here’s a drawing of the concept.  In this case the water tank stays sealed to the wheel until the wheel enters the bottom of the reservoir… And there is an exterior horizontal water channel at the top, leading from the reservoir to the sealed side, which I didn’t depict.

Calculating Torque.

Online torque calculator 

Torque of a water wheel 

Water Wheel torque formulas 

FAQ: What is Buoyancy?

Archimedes Wheel  

Finding center of gravity and center of buoyancy.

‘Regular’ Water Wheels:

Posted on Leave a comment

Historical Gravity Wheels

I don’t know if any Gravity Wheel has ever worked.  

I do hope they did and I hope my CCG Wheel will.  

I tend to believe it when I replicate it for myself.  

However, seeing history is inspirational for me, so perhaps for you too…

Perpetual motion and Gravity Wheel discussion

Here is a long series of Gravity Powered prime movers.  Very interesting reading and I can see how to make some improvements to the designs using the ‘gravity rules’ I outline in the Wiseman’s Wheels eBook.

The Kidd design, demonstrates anti-gravity.

Rumors from Russia, Gravity Wheels powering homes.  Here are many more videos detailing this design.  I think he’s on the right track! I like this one to show a gravity wheels ‘pendulum effect’.  

Abeling Gravity Wheel.  Has a ramp similar to the CCG Wheel.  Supposedly to be legit.

I like this Gravity Wheel concept really much.  The one way bearings are a nice touch.  He needs to put a ramp on the top and bottom, to move the weights out and in appropriately.

This Gravity Wheel looks really interesting in that it’ll even self-start but they don’t allow it to rotate 360° and I’m not sure why?  I’d add a ‘ramp’ on the bottom to cause the weights to flip inward (like the top ram flips them out) instead of just allowing them to hang on the upward side.

Here is a magnetically assisted Gravity Wheel.  I’ve seen this one a few times and would like to see a replication attempted.

Designing a Gravity Engine.

Learning from Darrell VanDuesen failures.

Scott Hall’s Gravity Wheel.

The ‘ANDY’ Gravity Wheel

A collection of Gravity Power ideas.

Gravity Wheel Patents: (click) (click)

‘Wobble’ Gravity Power (not a wheel). 

Rex Research Gravity Wheels

PesWiki Collection:

Bessler Wheel Links: 

Discussion of Bessler Wheel.  Bessler Wheel tidbits. Bessler Wheel website.

All things Bessler.  Sir Issac Newton’s Bessler Quote.  Bessler Witness Statements.

Why Gravity Wheels can work.  Another site by John Collins. A blog by John Collins.

On the other hand, Sir Issac Newton considered that a perpetual motion machine could be possible when interacting with gravity.

‘Buzz-Saw’ Wheel Links:

Asa Jackson Wheel Links: 

Here’s an ‘interesting’ one (called pinwheel) that I don’t yet understand

Here are wheels that, in my opinion, will not work… But it’s important to know WHY they don’t work so that we can design a wheel that WILL work!

Virtual ‘museum’ of ‘unworkable’ devices. Very Educational 


Chas has done a good job, but as you can see by the Wiseman’s Wheel’s math in the original Wiseman’s Wheel eBook, I’d predict that his wheel won’t work, it will balance…


Again, the Wiseman’s Wheel’s original eBook will show you that it will not work because the water is allowed to go too low on the wheel… But even if it didn’t, I’m thinking the wheel would still balance.

This is an interesting idea (needs improvement) of using compressed air to move the weights.  I’d make the weights separate and move them appropriately to the ‘gravity wheel rules’.

Gravity Wheel that supposedly worked 
and the attempts at replication (good to know why something doesn’t work)

Posted on Leave a comment

CBC and CT Corrections

I recently purchased the plans for the Capacitive Battery Charger and Transformer and there are some things that I just can’t understand.

1. Does the CBC stops loading batteries when they’re full

No.  Most battery chargers don’t.  You can add that feature using electronics.  I plan to offer such a circuit when I get time.

or I have to figure it out by some mysterious ways.

Most people who recharge batteries know how to determine if the battery is charged.
Stop charging when the voltage is full or peaks, whichever comes first.  
For example, a fully charged 12 Volt lead acid battery is fully charged when it’s somewhere between 13.5 VDC and 14 VDC when being charged.  Once the charger is removed the state of charge shouldn’t drop to less than 12.6 VDC.

If the battery is sulfated it may go as high as 80 VDC to push one amp across the sulfation.  As the sulfation dissolves the voltage will drop, to as little as 5 VDC, then the battery will charge normally.  The CBC’s ability to reach higher voltages (if needed) is what gives it the capability to recharge sulfated batteries. 

If you charge it above 14 VDC, like to 15 VDC and the voltage starts to drop, stop the charger immediately or battery damage will occur (plates will start to decompose).

2. What do the symbols DC amp and DC volt (both with arrows) mean (CT, page 1, figure 1).

Those are amp and volt gauges.

3. What does F1 mean?


4. What does the A on the Bridge Rectifier stand for (CBC, page 3, figure 1)

Weird font issue, a typo.  It’s supposed to say AC.

5. It says that “amperage will increase with the increase of capacitance” but it doesn’t say the way how to calculate the increase.

There are comments to help you calculate the capacitance needed for amperage.

The increase may be parabolic or linear.

It’s linear.

In my case, I would like to get 12 VDC and 25 ADC from 220 VAC (European standard). What formula do you use to calculate the capacitance necessary.

You’ll get about 1 amp for every 12.5 uF with 220 VAC at 50 Hz.

Below is a correspondence that corrects mistakes we made when converting the Capacitive Transformer document to it’s electronic version.  The CT drawing is correct, just in the wrong place; it was put in Figure 1 instead of Figure 2.

 On 2012-07-07, at 11:55 AM, Jed wrote:George,

The document I got off your website is contained in the attachments

The document that came with my order is contained in the attachments

I can no longer find the document I originally found on your website, but I noted that the copyright date was October 1996.

Your Doc1 is a copy of the original paperback book and has the correct Capacitive Transformer circuit schematic,  description and figure numbers.  So you already have the ‘corrected’ version.  The paperback is correct.

The only change I see is that I no longer recommend using electrolytic capacitors for the secondary (lower voltage) capacitor.  Electrolytics are NOT rated for continous duty AC and will fail in a fairly short time.  I didn’t know that when I originally tesed them.

Your Doc2 is the download of our conversion of Doc1 to an electronic version.  It is supposed to be IDENTICAL to your Doc1.  In the process of conversion there were several errors that have caused your appropriate confusion.

1. The drawing that was supposed to be figure 1 (the simplest Capacitive Battery Charger) was accidentally deleted altogether (but is still in the CBC book).

2. The drawing that was supposed to be figure 2 (example of Capacitive Transformer) is currently in the place of figure 1 (so where it says ‘fig. 2’ in the document, refer to fig. 1).

3. The drawing that is currently labelled figure 2 is the ‘Capacitive Battery Charger, with options’; which wasn’t supposed to be in the Capacitive Transformer document.  However, it doesn’t matter because neither it or the simple CBC drawing (original fig. 1) were CT circuits anyway.  The ONLY CT circuit is labelled correctly (as the Capacitive Transformer), even if it’s figure number and placement are currently wrong.

I will put a note up in the Capacitive Power Supply Resources about these errors.  
In the meantime you can now proceed with your project.
I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.The error I believe is on attachment Doc2-4. The figure 2 is obviously the “Capacitive Battery Charger, with options,” and it should be the picture of the “Capacitive Transformer.” 

You are correct.and also any insight where I can buy the parts to build a charger for a 115 VDC battery pack.

I get my capacitors from surpluscenter.comI appreciate the work you’re doing. It’s encouraging. I’d love to be on your subscription list. 

You’d need to subscribe yourself; it’s part of double opt in requirements by my ISP. Subscribe to the Eagle-Research newsletter at the bottom of our home page (if you haven’t already) to be informed when new information is available.

For faster notification of updates, you can also follow me on twitter 
Fuel Saving Tweets ( FuelSaverGuru )
Eagle-Research Tweets ( Eagle_Research )
Personal Tweets ( ecopegasus )I also want to note that if you are charging a vehicle battery while it is in the vehicle, it is a good idea to at least disconnect the ‘positive’ battery terminal; so that the charging voltage from the CBC will not go into the vehicle’s electrical/electronic system.  Safest is to disconnect both battery terminals. I had two experiences with my RV that show the importance of this cautionary measure. 1. My RV had been parked for some time and the chassis (engine) battery had drained (I now disconnect the chassis battery when I park the RV).  When I went to charge it there must have been some sulfation because the initial battery voltage rose to 22 VDC.  I heard a pop inside the RV and discovered that my inverter had fried (it couldn’t take that high a voltage).  Cost to replace $200.  I’ve also subsequently upgraded my ‘charging relay’ circuit so that the coach batteries (and inverter) are not connected to the chassis battery unless the engine is running. 2. My CBC had developed an internal short, but it was still working at half power so I hadn’t bothered to fix it.  There was no problem charging ‘normal’ vehicle’s batteries or even the RV battery EXCEPT that this particular time I had the RV coach plugged into the Grid (so the RV would have electrical without using its storage batteries and inverter).  The electricity (from the Grid) that was feeding the CBC was on an opposite ‘leg’ of the 240 VAC, so (because of the CBC internal short circuit) I had a 240 VAC direct short back through the RV’s 12 VDC electrical system to the Grid.  This fried a bunch of things in my chassis electrical/electronic systems (primary fuse box, gauge cluster, ABS, headlights, etc.).  Estimated cost to repair by Ford was 2 weeks time and parts, in the range of $8000.  Since I’m a mechanic and know how to buy parts off eBay I repaired it for $600 in two working days.   So… I recommend disconnecting the positive lead of your battery.  Generally I still don’t if I know the battery is good (no sulfation) and I know my CBC is good (no shorts).  But I’m telling you this story now so you can be aware of the potential issues.

Posted on Leave a comment

Capacitive Power Supply Notes

Note 1:
To physically determine capacitance amperage limiting for any particular AC voltage and frequency, you can perform a very simple experiment.

Take a (motor run) nominal (say 25 uF) capacitor rated for your voltage (or higher) and wire it in series with NO load (this would normally be considered a direct short).  The capacitor will prevent it from actually being a direct short by limiting the amperage.  Put an AC ammeter in series with the capacitor to see what the amperage is.  

O = AC inputs
|| = capacitor
A = ammeter (can be direct wired or amp-clamp)

Note 2:
If you measure the wattage of the ‘test’ circuit in Note 1 with a wattmeter, you will find it to be near zero.  This is because the capacitor ‘decouples’ the load voltage from the source voltage, by returning any voltage the load didn’t use to the source on the alternate cycle.

The ‘test’ circuit shows no (or very little) wattage ‘consumed’ because there is no ‘load voltage’ (only the voltage to overcome circuit resistance).  
Wattage actually used (recorded in a wattmeter) is the load (circuit) voltage times the load (circuit) amperage.  
So if the load (circuit) voltage is zero and the load (circuit) amperage is 1 amp, then the wattage will be zero (0 x 1 = 0).

Electrical engineers often have trouble grasping this concept because they are trained to think the source voltage and the load voltage are the same thing.  Normally they are.  
But when you add a capacitor in series with the load, you ‘split the voltage’ and the source voltage no longer matters to the wattage calculation; because any voltage that is not ‘consumed’ by the load is returned to the source ‘unused’.

Posted on Leave a comment

Helpful Capacitive Charger Links

This is an excellent article on WHY lead acid batteries go bad; and how to fix the problem.

Of course they don’t mention that the Capacitive Battery Charger does this ‘corrective’ action too, is simple and inexpensive for anyone to home-make AND goes one step further.  The CBC can remove sulfation from batteries that have been undercharged for so long that NO ordinary charger can recover them (might take 80 VDC to break through the sulfation layers).

Bedini Technology has another ‘battery related’ spin.  They’ve discovered that lead acid batteries are Free Energy Accumulators when connected to a proper apparatus.  More on that later.

Modified Capacitive Battery Charger (can run off inverter)

Capacitive discharge welding can weld dis-similar metals together.