Occasionally, it suddenly hits me, what a massive wall of scepticism faces us in our determination to convince others that Bessler' wheel was a real machine.
To me the evidence is clear, but convincing anyone else is not so much an uphill climb, as a verticle ascent of the severest difficulty with a multitude of overhangs, loose rock and perilous falling boulders - in bare feet!
I think we all understand the difficulties of explaining how it is possible to have a wheel turn continuously, purely from the falling of weights which have to be lifted again at every revolution - we can't ....yet! Hopefully, if you are here, then you probably believe it is possible to achieve this without violating any laws of physics. You are not alone - I have received, over several years, many emails in support of my contention that gravity-enabled wheels are a legitimate source of power for charging batteries and driving mechanical systems.
Three of those emails have come from professors who were openly supportive of the idea, but left it to me to discover how! Others came from people who wanted to express their support in writing but could not be seen publicly expressing their approval. Then there are the hundreds who have over the last sixteen years (my goodness, has it really been that long!) supported my efforts and agreed that there is something worth looking into. The fact that these people are educated and familiar with the laws of physics has given me some optimism that at least a working model would be accepted by them, but what I would really like is for some large company with a decent research budget to take a look at the evidence and put some money into finding the solution.
The amount of money being spent on alternative energies which don't include gravity-enabled wheel is huge and doubly frustrating when our own efforts which cost peanuts in comparison, could revolutionise the energy market overnight once the correct solution is known.
Here are a few figures gleaned from google. There is, for instance, the failed solar company, Solyndra, which received $535 million in federal aid before it went bankrupt in 2011, what a waste!
In the California Valley Solar Ranch, a 250-megawatt utility project is being built by NRG Energy on more than 4,000 acres of dry, sun-drenched land in San Luis Obispo County, northwest of Los Angeles. The ranch's 1 million solar panels will provide enough power for 100,000 homes, but at the cost of $1.6 billion — nearly all of which, according to the Times, will be paid for by government subsidies.
Last year, global spending on new renewable energy projects hit a record of $195 billion. According to the analysists at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, annual spending on new clean energy projects will not only surpass that amount in the coming years, but double it. By 2020, annual investments in adding clean energy capacity will reach $395 billion, driven largely by fast-paced growth in solar and offshore wind. Spending levels will grow to $460 billion by 2030, the group said in a report released today.
When is someone going to direct their attention towards Bessler's wheel and inject some of that money to prove that it works? I know the answer of course, not until someone produces a working model!
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
I almost have the Bessler wheel solved .
ReplyDeleteThen welcome to the "club" because we ALL "almost have the Bessler wheel solved" too!
DeleteOdd, though, that while EACH of us here thinks he "almost" has IT, we are ALL pursuing DIFFERENT designs!
Something tells me that a LOT of us are going to wind up disappointed.
Thanks for that very interesting informative Blog John.
ReplyDeleteYou are right,we have to get down and produce a working wheel before anything can happen.
Thanks Trevor. It does bug me though, how there's all this money being spent looking for the answer when perhaps the answer is here - and the technologies they are researching are so expensive and none of them will be of use planet wide the way Bessler's wheel will be.
ReplyDeleteJC
One thing that bugs me is the phrase "it is possible to achieve this without violating the laws of physics".
ReplyDeleteThe laws of physics CAN'T be violated. THEY are pure. If there was a way to do it, it would have to obey the laws. The laws actually prove it's impossible the way Bessler was supposed to have done it; using gravity as energy (ahem). So either it was an elaborate scheme, or a weak heat engine that didn't - or more accurately - couldn't, violate the laws of physics.
All new technology is overly expensive. Bessler wanted 2.5 M. That was pretty expensive wouldn't you say?
Solar, wind , etc are no different. But the price will come down for them and other renewables as the demand goes up which it inevitably will. Supply and demand determine price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
When oil peaks and declines, supply will fall, demand remains unchanged, and the price will rise, and demand for renewable energy will increase because there won't be enough cheap oil anymore; the price will be about the same as solar or wind. What's left of pricey oil will be for the most important uses to maintain security in the world.
@ Doug
Delete“One thing that bugs me is the phrase "it is possible to achieve this without violating the laws of physics".
Doug, this really Should Not be bugging you
The proposition is simple.
In reality, there exists is a simple mechanism; “a simple system of falling weights and levers” suitably arranged and mounted upon an axle such that there is always a preponderance of weight to one side of that axle.
That this is something that was known about in antiquity, but this knowledge was ‘lost’,
That this is the same something that Bessler recovered and then ran into trouble with, and then he took as ‘his secret’ to the grave when he’ fell’ from the windmill.
That this object is quirky
It is magical.
It is an ancient mystery; something exceptional: no ordinary object
It is an anomaly; a ‘one-off’
It is one of those objects in life (there are other examples) of “an exception that proves the rules “
Sir Isaac will not be proved wrong Doug
He was clearly a very clever bloke
He just missed a Cute-One
That’s all!
JW
I look at Bessler's and Asa Jackson's wheels as the "black swans" that prove that not all swans are white. They are the four-leaf clovers that prove not all clovers are three-leaved. They are the odd pieces that complete the puzzle and make a whole picture of it. They show what can be achieved with the science of mechanics when one starts to think "outside of the box" that the "no track" skeptics have resigned themselves to living in for the rest of their lives and are trying to get everyone else they can to join them.
DeleteUltimately, these wheels are historical mysteries that are in crying need of being solved! Let's get it done!
One thing that bugs me is the phrase it can't be done!
ReplyDeleteIt seems clear enough to me, Doug, as I said "if you are here, then you probably believe it is possible to achieve this without violating any laws of physics." It's you guys who tell us that such a machine would "violate the laws of physics", not I. I believe Bessler's wheel was genuine and obviously it could not violate the laws of physics, so there must be a way to replicate it which ensures that it conforms with those laws, despite your staunch support and your indomitable faith in such machines being impossible according to what you've been taught.
ReplyDeleteJC
Yes John,..Bessler did comment to the effect that he wanted to demonstrate the wheel to a physics professor that it indeed did not violate the laws of physics.
ReplyDeleteI invested a lot of time and money into the Bessler wheel and have not made any money out of it . ):
ReplyDeleteI've probably put at least 10,000 hours into my Bessler research and haven't made a penny off of it so far. And, even IF I do finally rediscover his secret, I STILL don't expect to make a penny off of it! So, why do I bother?
DeleteI bother only because I want to have the SUPREMELY satisfying pleasure of seeing this @#$%& historical mystery FINALLY solved! That to me is worth MORE than ALL of the gold in the UNIVERSE melted down and formed into a solid sphere the size of our SUN!!!
I want a minimum of 10 million dollars when i achieve a working wheel .
DeleteIt's not possible to achieve it the way you have faith in gravity as an enabler.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to achieve other ways. This is where everyone should explore; to solve the "Ancient Mystery". I've never said what he did is impossible at all. Only impossible as you believe it was done.
You believe it was genuine as a PM overbalanced machine which is epistemically impossible.
The universal observations that shape that impossibility haven't changed for as far back in time as we've been able to see. Only if the universe changes, if every universal constant assumed a different value, like some sort of bizarro universe, is such a machine ever going to be possible.
So the phrase "There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics, or both.", doesn't mean a hypothetical machine would break the laws, it means the hypothesis itself breaks the laws, not just any particular machine, before you've even started building. The machine (that you believe in) is one of countless versions of the same hypothesis.
That's why there is no money or future in gravity enabled machines, not because there is too much money being invested in solar , wind, etc.
I agree Doug, that an isolated perpetual motion in an isolated system would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics, but as you know, I maintain that gravity is all around and within the machine and it cannot therefore be isolated from it.
ReplyDeleteJC
Wouldn't a Bessler wheel spinning away aboard a rotating wheel-type space station be "isolated" from a planet's gravity field? These OB designs really do not require gravity in order to work. I think it might even be possible to make one run by just applying unidirectional spring tension to the ends of its levers!
DeleteI agree TG, but we were talking specifically about gravity.
DeleteJC
John, gravity isn't energy or matter. Those are the 2 things that define open or closed thermodynamic systems. It doesn't matter that gravity permeates the wheels or that it doesn't have to pass the system boundaries of his wheels. It's not part of the definition for open or closed systems. The fact that it is all around and within the (hypothetical) wheel is irrelevant to the statement "There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics, or both."
Delete"There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system would violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics, or both."
DeleteThat "consensus" is WRONG because it neglects to consider the ENORMOUS amount of EXTRACTABLE innate energy / mass contained in the weights of an OB PM gravity wheel. Such a wheel, when running, is actually an "open" system and continously transferring energy / mass to objects in its surroundings.
Time for me to chime in.
ReplyDeleteMy contention is that EVEN IF we do manage to produce a WORKING Bessler wheel replica that does NOT violate the laws of physics (and I don't think it would), then there will STILL be little to no interest in investing in it due to its pathetically LOW power output. Yes, the fact that it does not use a "conventional" source of energy / mass and APPEARS to be perpetual in its operation is truly amazing and I'm sure all of the kiddies and high school "science" students will want to build and own one. Some model making company will probably put out a nice little do-it-yourself kit to make them and I'll be the first in line to buy one! BUT, "serious" investment on the order of hundreds of millions to tens of billions of USD to make these wheels a COMMERCIALLY attractive source of power probably WON'T be happening.
In 1878, IIRC, Crooks came up with his "Radiometer" because of an accidental discovery he made in his chemistry lab. When the first ones were demonstrated, they totally amazed people and there were projections being made, despite the low torque of the devices, about how they could be used to generate electrical power without all the stink and soot that coal fired electrical power plants would emit. Well, does anybody see us using that "simple" technology NOWADAYS? If it did not happen for the radiometer, it won't be happening for Bessler's wheels either UNLESS someone can figure out a way of increasing their power output by a factor of about 1000 so that their power output density drops by a factor of 1000! Based on the designs that I am working on, I don't see how this could be done by just using weights. However, maybe designs using JUST spring tension could provide a way around this problem...MAYBE.
But, while the Crooks' radiometer failed, current solar panel technology is NOT failing. It DOES work, but, unfortunately, they still are not converting 100% of the radiant energy reaching a panel into electricity. With continued massive investment for research, that situation may change. You cite the California Valley Solar Ranch project in this blog entry and the $1.6 billion USD in government subsidies that is funding it. This project, like many others in California is due to a recent federal "mandate" that requires the state to have fully 1/3 of its total electrical power being produced from "alternative" sources by the year 2020. Needless to say, to meet that deadline, we are going to have to invest a LOT of taxpayers' money into these projects. But, we will also be getting some of that enormous investment back because it will lessen the demand for other conventional forms of energy / mass and that will bring their costs down for the taxpayer.
Right now, the US is struggling to regain its world leadership in the field of "green energy" so we'll probably be continuing to invest huge amounts into this for years to come (interestingly, the Solyndra debacle was due to their NOT being able to commercially compete with a new revolutionary solar panel design that came out of CHINA!). BUT, the results of our ongoing research ARE now starting to produce an ever increasing percentage of the total power used in the US. We'll still be using things like coal and gas for many years to come, of course, but if we are ever to be freed from the problems associated with these, then the time to start working on "green" alternatives is NOW and we are despite the economic problems that are hampering the western world and, most likely, will worsen in the coming years.
Trevor wrote: "One thing that bugs me is the phrase it can't be done!"
Fret not. IF Bessler did it and it was NOT a hoax, then it CAN be done and WILL be done by others, eventually. Keep building and, most importantly, keep studying the two DT portraits for the wealth of clues hidden in them. I do!
If you widen the wheel 5 times that would multiply the power output 5 times .
DeleteIt is a mistake to determine the power output of the Bessler wheel based on DEMONSTRATION models that were shown by Johann Bessler .
I agree and have made projections based on various size wheels carrying weights of various masses. In order to produced a few thousand watts to power a small, high efficiency home, I wind up with drum sized wheels carrying TONS of weight that would fill most of the interior of a BARN!
DeleteGravity is the weakest of the forces of nature and, obviously, NOT the best choice to use in an OB wheel. By switching to spring tension, one starts to use the stronger force of the electric field to extract energy / mass from the components of a wheel (actually from the springs themselves!). That increases power output and reduces power density. It might be possible to construct something the size of a stove or refrigerator that could continuously output thousands of watts. With something like that it DOES become practical for EVERY home to have its own Bessler type power plant and, most importantly, there would be NO need to store energy / mass up during lulls in the home's usage so that they could be used during times of peak demand. The machine would simple produce the peak power when it was needed or no power at all if none was needed. That eliminates such extra things as batteries and capacitors and the control system needed to manage them.
IF we ever find the secret of Bessler's wheels, then, no doubt, there could be some research along these lines. Who knows, maybe in a few decades something that was "commercially viable" might actually come out of it after all. Meanwhile, I keep my focus on the simpler mechanics of Bessler's wheels. They are the "key" that will open the doors to future possibilities IF those doors exist.
Correction:
DeleteIn the second paragraph of my 8 October 2012 19:12 comment I wrote: "UNLESS someone can figure out a way of increasing their power output by a factor of about 1000 so that their power output density drops by a factor of 1000!"
That should have been: "UNLESS someone can figure out a way of increasing their power output by a factor of about 1000 so that their power output density INCREASES by a factor of 1000!"
Sorry about that.
Io credo che ruota Bssler è legge di gravità . Antonino
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf gravity was good enough to power the water wheels then it's good enough power the Bessler wheel.
ReplyDeleteThe question that begs answering is,..Why should credentials be enough to justify scientists the freedom to waste millions of taxpayer's money on massive energy projects that are doomed to fail.
When governments look for consultants to advise them on various scientific / technical issues, they ALWAYS look for people with PhD's + YEARS of experience. ONLY these people are considered to be SCIENTISTS and have "informed" opinions and can make valid predictions about the outcome of a proposed project. The government is NOT interested in hearing from "self-educated" basement / garage inventors who think they can get something from nothing, but have yet to demonstrate this possibility on ANY scale after DECADES of trying. Yes, Bessler and Jackson did it and were self-educated, but they BOTH lived over a century ago and there is still MUCH debate about the reality of their achievements (NOT in my mind, however).
DeleteAs far as the scientific "experts" are concerned, judging by the cost over runs on practically EVERY government project ever initiated (needed to get the various UNanticipated "bugs" out of them!), I'd say that their "informed" opinions leave MUCH to be desired!
Large scale solar and wind installations -multi-megawatt installations- are nice but not a permanent solution - for at least 2 reasons. First reason: sun and wind are not permanently available, and utterly unreliable. And that immediately implies the second problem: for the times these installations produce little or no power something else has to take over. There's only one alternative than can take over: conventional fossil-fuel or nuclear generation facilities. Nobody ever talks about that, but it is a fact.
ReplyDeleteAnd the problem gets bigger and bigger and more costly the more windparks and solar parks are created. Soon we shall have to start to build additional conventional generation capacity to prevent rolling blackouts as a result of failing (not-producing, for whatever reason) so-called "renewables". And this to the fact that large wind turbines are extremely expensive, difficult to maintain and failure prone. Burned out or seized windturbines can be found everywhere.
Instead of the perpetual upscaling (in any area) the Gov't is always looking for a real solution should be on a much smaller scale: a smart grid where millions upon millions small-scale energy producers (homes, factories, neighborhoods) are feeding the grid where temporary overcapacity exists, and energy is automatically shuttled to places where it is needed. Surely with modern switching, computing resources and infrastructure this is achievable.
Perhaps it is possible to optimize, by clever engineering, the energy production of a Bessler wheel or similar gravity-driven devices. But one thing is for sure: energy generation would be constant. That makes it very suitable for all kinds of storage and surge solutions.
One of the most likely solutions for Bessler's Wheel or similar mechanisms lies in parametric oscillation. In electrical terms: more watts out than in. If a klutz like me can prove it with a crude setup, anybody can do it.
"First reason: sun and wind are not permanently available, and utterly unreliable."
DeleteQuite true, but only on a local / regional level. I wouldn't be surprised if there are plans ALREADY on the drawing board about the construction of a "worldwide smart power grid" that would link together alternative energy generation plants from widely separated locations all over our globe. It's always sunny and windy somewhere on Earth at any time of the day or night. This grid would automatically take excess electrical power from where it was being generated and route it to areas for use where it wasn't being produced in excess or not at all. With are really "smart" grid that was extensive enough, it might even be possible to completely eliminate the need to store any energy / mass!
I agree that those UNsightly wind turbines are a headache. In fact, I read an article that said that a lot of people who live near them (like within a mile or so) say they produce an irritating whinning sound when their blades are turning in the wind. Who needs to put up with that?
Solar panels, OTOH, are close to a dream come true. They contain no moving parts to wear out and are silent in operation. The main problem now is their inefficiency and making sure they are hit directly by the incident solar radiation that they will use to generate a voltage. Currently, there is experimentation ongoing to produce these panels as cheaply as possible and to make them so that they will utilize ALL of the frequencies of radiation hitting them which they do not now do. For maximum reception of incoming radiation, they used to have the panels mounted on frames that were automatically rotated by motors so as to try to make the incident radiation strike a panel at right angles to its plane. That complicated the use of these panels. But, now there are new designs coming out that will allow the panel to efficiently receive the incoming radiation over a much wider range of incident angles. This allows the panel to be stationary and elimates the solar "tracking" hardware.
I think that, eventually, our whole planet will be solar powered, but it won't be happening until, perhaps, the end of this century. Once that happens, we'll still probably be using petroleum, but mainly to make various types of plastics from it. The demand will only be a small fraction of what it is now and maybe a few decades after that our atmosphere will finally be clear of the contaminants that cause global warming and various respiratory ailments.
Quite true - solar power is being developed at a rapid pace. Despite all the advances, one of the biggest problems remains heat. I live in a tropical country (in Asia) and heat is a serious detriment to the efficiency of solar panels. In fact it drops rather spectacularly when the panels heat up - and they sure do under full (tropical) sun; one can literally bake an egg on them. So that's another big challenge.
DeleteConverting all wavelengths of light (or at least as many as possible) is great, but it would be wonderful if they could do something with Tesla's discovery of "radiant energy" in those same panels. Tesla developed very simple panels that worked at night (in fact even better at night). The yield was very low in his day, but still, it worked. Possibly it was cosmic radiation, but Tesla hypothesized that it was some form of radiation from the Sun.
You know, if they would design and develop the smart grid with a similar topology as the internet, i.e. with millions of nodes, it would be quite resilient against sabotage as well.
Off topic somewhat but also nice to hear is the fact that Milkovics parametric oscillation devices and theories very recently have been recognized by the Serbian Academy of Scientists as more efficient than rotational devices and therefore is possibly more important than the discovery of the wheel, such as used in stationary machines (pumps, compressors, power generators, etc.).
Thanks Andre, that's exactly what I was trying to say. All other forma are unreliable 24/7. If everyone generates enough electricity for their own needs, Bessler's wheel could do it.
ReplyDeleteJC