The news that the Tokyo Electric Power Company will completely write off four of the six reactors at the crippled nuclear plant, suggests that the time is up for this expensive, potentially hazardous way of generating electricity. Many countries are reviewing their plans to build more 'improved' reactors and perhaps a halt will be called to further developments. I suggest that coal-fired electricity generators would be preferable to the nuclear option. I looked up the comparative costs of the options in the UK and found that one nuclear power station costs about £1.2b to build. A coal-fired one costs a little less at £1 billion. However the coal-fired one has the latest emmission cleaning technolog that reduces pollution to almost zero. The on-going cost of dealing with spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor are almost limitless.
By comparison, an offshore wind turbine is rated at 3MW but only reaches about 40% of that capacity because of wind conditions. This means that you would need 1166 wind turbines to equal the output of a nuclear reactor! The cost of building them is estimated at £10.4b and would take up 406 square kilometers!
Why are we even considering wind power? It doesn't make economical nor ecological sense. Better to have coal fired power than the other options. However there is a snag. The cost in lives of coal mining is prohibitive and it is impossible to guarantee absolute safety even in the most advanced pits. So what's left?
What's the solution? There is one of course! Above these options Bessler's wheel would rein supreme as the
cleanest,cheapest, safest option.
Am I being presumptive and too naive in suggesting that such a system is even feasible let alone possible? No, the evidence that such a device was designed and built and demonstrated almost 300 years ago in Germany is so well established that it is regarded as a potential solution to the energy crisis in some quarters and is accepted as fact among a few in the higher echelons of the world of physics. We can, and must, continue our investigations into this phenomenon in order to present the world with this c lean, free, safe form of energy.
We have been taught that such a device, driven purely by gravity, is a violation of the laws of conservation of energy. Unfortunately there is an absolutely vast majority who continue to believe this and ignore the evidence. There is sound evidence that Bessler's wheel required no other force than gravity to drive it. What I find extraordinary is the lengths many of those who accept that Bessler's wheel worked, will go to, to explain why it works, summoning additional energies that in my opinion simply won't suffice. For me the truth is blindingly simple, gravity will do the job on its own and there is no conflict with the laws of physics. There is no need to imagine extra impetus from other forces, gravity will do the job. Bessler's wheel proves our teachers wrong and if it is wrong then it is up to we few who know the secret to build a working model, publish the how and the why and spread the information with all possible speed to stop any more of these toxic nuclear generators bringing forward the early demise of the human species not to mention the myriad other forms of life. It could happen.
JC
Too true John,..This is enough justification to prioritise this mission.
ReplyDeleteWhen you ask yourself "Why hasn't the mystery been solved?" what do you think the most likely answer is?
ReplyDeleteI wish someone would prioritise it Trevor, but maybe they won't have to, I think there is good news on the horizon.
ReplyDeleteDifficult question to answer Jeff. In my opinion it's because no one could think of a way of accomodating the conservative nature of gravity in a gravity-driven wheel.
JC
If you ask me,I personally suspect that we are looking too solve the wheel by the positioning of weights and levers which Bessler said would get us nowhere.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should try a new approach to discover the unknown factor that changed everything.A factor that caused the positioning of the weights to occur without an energy input.
This factor could also be just the force of gravity because after all, gravity is just a force not an energy and all you need is a force to position the weights.
Thats my twopence worth!
What goods is this John,..Do you care to elaborate and by whom?
ReplyDeletePlease scrap that previous comment.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say,..What good news is this John,..Do you care to elaborate and by whom?
I wondered, for a moment Trevor, what you meant ;-)
ReplyDeleteI can't elaborate at the moment but there will be more information in a while. Don't ask me to be specific about timing as I'm usually wrong about that!
JC
Trevor didnt bessler say:
ReplyDelete'Inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement. Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs or other hanging weights which require winding up or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, on the contrary these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetual motion itself; as from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, so arranged that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn must also move.' - Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile
The positions according to him are what makes it work? Isee alot of contradicting statements
What are the laws of perpetual motion? I've never heard of them.
then how did bessler accomodate the conservative nature in gravity? if that is the answer? what IS the conservative nature ingravity
Jeff,..I have been there,done that but maybe I must have another go.
ReplyDeleteI think what Bessler must have been referring to,..If you have two weights on a bar that revolves on an axle upto about one rev/sec the weights start to swing chaotically and even start to cartwheel.I did a test and found that while all this lively action was taking place,it did not slow up the wheel any faster than if it had no weights on the bar at all.
Now if we can work out how to use this lively swinging of weights to cause them to stay off the center of gravity without dampening their swing,the wheel will turn perpetually.
Does this make sense?
It kind of makes sense...but what is the arrangement of that prevent the weights from obtaining equilbrium? or remain out of centre of gravityI don't understand i thought overbalanced wheels were not possible Thanks
ReplyDeleteBessler designed a way to cause the lively weights to move to one side of their stationary fulcrum,say to left.
ReplyDeleteThis will cause the left side to be heavier by virtue of leverage thus causing the wheel to turn.The turning of the wheel will in turn cause the pendulums to swing and move to the left.
So you can see that the pendulums will never stop swinging and the wheel will never stop turning.A typical catch 22 situation.
But I thought gravity is supposed to move the weights??
ReplyDeleteAnd how did he fit the pendulums in side?those pictures of the wheels with pendulums on the outside dont fit if you move them inside thanks
No,no,those Pendulums on the outside were only used for limiting the wheel's speed if there is not enough load to keep the wheel from over running.
ReplyDeleteThe weights inside also swung freely like pendulums to provide off center turning effect by gravity.
But the pendulums weren't ever used were they? they only were in the drawings? Confused.Unless they were inside, and Karl didn't see them. But that can't be roght, the wheel always had enough load...Are you sure
ReplyDeleteall the wheels i've tried can't turn one time, no matter how much the weight is or how far it moves i'm starting to think there is something missing besides weights
Don't get confused.Stick to the things you know.
ReplyDeleteI believe that very soon, like on Monday, this coming Monday, I will have completed my latest attempt and it will work this time. I have worked on it for nine months only a day or two each weekend. Parts have been bending or breaking, but now every part is strong enough, just have to put in the other one of two catch/timing releases. It has been interesting to have worked so long on it without knowing if it will go. All instant gratification will be received in a bundle!!!!
ReplyDeleteCongratulation!
ReplyDeleteIs something wrong with ur blog? I saw a comment and then it was gone
ReplyDeleteI think that was mine. I guess John isn't allowing dissenting opinion anymore.
ReplyDeleteThats good! I think this blog is so much more constructive when we remain positive.
ReplyDeleteI hope John can give us a hint regarding his good news and the time line.
I think all views should be considered, and allowed whether you agree with them or not. I was responding to Jeff and I think my comment said either something about conservative force as applied to gravity that was hard to swallow, or about the Bessler mystery.
ReplyDeleteBut it's all good. No hard feelings.
Eccentrically,
I haven't removed any comments for many months. I accept dissenting opinions as long as they're couched in polite and respectful language. I think I've only removed two comments in all the time I've had the blog.
ReplyDeleteJC
John,.. will you be the innitiator of the good news or is it someone else?
ReplyDeleteYes ;-)
ReplyDeleteJC
Now that would be poetic justice!
ReplyDeleteThat's strange. Oh well, I'll try again.
ReplyDeleteI said something like in my opinion the most likely answer to the mystery is most attempts so far at solving the design have used designs that rely on gravity alone. They've been called overbalancing wheels and you're right Jeff, they aren't possible; it's been proven on paper with math and in countless variations over thousands of years. John can vouch for the variations he's tried; his previous blog post mentioned up to two hundred.
Bessler, who may have had a genius IQ, given his eccentric behavior, realized this I think, and designed his wheel with an internally hidden source of energy (although it wasn't perpetual, it had to be "refueled" somehow). That is what I'm trying to solve; I'm not sure anyone else that follows John's blog agrees with me. I'd like to think they are possible too, but I understand why they aren't.
Conservative, in a physics context, doesn't mean an energy is saved, or conserved, for future use. It means that the measure of that energy or property is held constant over time. Gravity, in this case on Earth, is measured as about 9.8 meters per second, every second. A nonconservative force such as friction can vary over time.
I think that's close to what I said before.
Eccentrically,
Doug
thanks, doug. i looked at the link from your name and went to some stuff from there. Now im willing to try other designs that may turn for a bit
ReplyDeletejeff
Perpetual motion is possible believe me.The one thing I can't comprehend is why it should be so easily available because we have been schooled to accept that energy can't come from nothing and yet it does,all due totally to the force of gravity.
ReplyDeleteI suppose if you think about it,the sun was handed to us on a plate, for without it no life could even exist.
The closest thing to perpetual motion would be the planets, moons, stars, galaxies - the bodies of the universe itself - but in time we won't be able to tell if their motion is infinite because the furthest galaxies at the edge of the observable universe are predicted to eventually recede from our galaxy at a speed greater than that of light, and they will figuratively vanish from sight. They'll still be there if that happens, but unless we have a technology to observe them, they might as well have never been here. I think the technology that has achieved the longest motion (so far) is a specially designed magnetic bearing that doesn't produce eddy fields, mounted inside a near perfect vacuum.
ReplyDeleteWe aren't schooled that energy can't come from nothing. All of our energy was created during the big bang. I think you mean energy can't be created or destroyed, only transformed, from chemical to kinetic, for example. I've said this before, a weight's potential energy is TRANSFORMED to usable energy when it is lifted off the ground into a new space in the force field of gravity. It's this action of lifting the weight in the field of gravity that transforms the energy; gravity ONLY transforms that new kinetic energy back to potential energy, it doesn't provide the energy transformation of potential to kinetic. That is provided by who or what ever lifted it up against the force of gravity. And in case you're thinking it, inertia is not a force; it's only a property, a measurement of a body. It doesn't lift a weight in space.
That is a roundabout explanation, but gravity only transforms energy, it doesn't create it "from nothing", period.
Most of the the energy we harness here can trace its' origin back to, yes, the life-giving sun. The iron core of the earth creates a magnetic field to help protect the Earth. The molten rock underground heats the oceans. The sun and the earth's gravity cooperate to create energy, I've said this somewhere before too. Hydroelectricity is the best example.
I don't know what you mean by the sun being handed to us on a plate.
Eccentrically,
Doug
I mean that the sun's energy is free how ever it got there.My point is, when ever someone claims to have perpetual motion you are frowned upon because they think you are breaking the rules of life, because the mind set dictates that we have to work for everything.
ReplyDeleteWe are coming into an era when that will no longer be the case.
You are talking from the experience of things you know and are used to.
When you are shown perpetual motion and how it can be scientifically and mathematically proven you will also say,'Now I understand'
By the way,..Friction is not a factor in the turning of the wheel because if it has enough torque to do useful work then it will overcome any friction that presents itself.
ReplyDeleteYes, solar energy is free.
ReplyDeleteWell, Trevor, that's just it - such claims are frowned upon because they do break the rules. John said in his post that there are a few in the higher echelons of physics who accept as fact that perpetual motion and Bessler's wheel are real. Who are these few? I'd like to know, and what they have said about it. John, can you provide any names, quotes?
Also, the evidence isn't sound that his wheels were only gravity powered. To me, when I read the descriptions and observations of the demonstrations of the wheel, the evidence shows that they had to have had another source of power to turn them besides gravity. I've commented on why that is on an earlier post.
You said in an earlier post that you were down but not out, you had explored the last option in physics, it just cannot be done with pure mechanical physics. Actually, that's the only way it can be duplicated, with pure mechanics. There was nothing exotic in 1710-20, not even electricity.
The friction present in a wheel like his would have considerable amounts of friction to overcome. I don't see how it could not be a factor, just because his wheel overcame it, doesn't mean it wasn't a factor. The friction at the axle bearings alone would have been a big factor. That's one of the reasons I know it had another source of power. Do you know how torque applies here?
Eccentrically
Doug
Yes Doug ,..I said I was down but not out because my last option,which was centrifugal force, did not pan out.I refused to give up and after a 10 day break I have since found out that it can be done,but with strategic mechanics.
ReplyDeleteI now know that John is 100% right.It is gravity that turns the wheel giving it sufficient torque to do work and overcome the negligable friction.
It is also gravity that primes the wheel.This is why it does not break any rules.I am getting quite excited now because I can see that it will have more power than I thought.
Also it is quite possible that it will free from the banging that was characteristic of Besslers wheel.This is important because if it is to be used as a domestic generator it needs to be quiet.