The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ovyyus,

my design (device) is not a out of balance wheel so can be driven externally, using Know and proven technology, go to my web site www.real-free-energy.co.uk go to page three and look for this!

The Falkirk Wheel Scenario One, using the Falkirk Wheels input drive system.
The Energy Loop can be closed in Just half a rotation!!!!
The Worlds most Efficient Hydraulic Pump!!!!

So now we are only arguing over the counterbalance state of the wheel then! how many out of balance lever wheel have been built! they all balanced out, feel free to check the leverage calculation.

[ovyyus]

my design (device) is not a out of balance wheel so can be driven externally

Sure, but output power is the result of applied external input. As you say, the design is not an out of balance wheel. I didn't find anything on your website that might prove gravity is an energy source. Perhaps I missed it?

[nicbordeaux]

Methinks, Ovyyus, that this is a claim of major overunity, probably wrong but sounds like an expansion/contraction flywheel principle, generally weights sliding out on arms, or diameter increase via cenrifugal force serving to change ratio on a drive of mech with or part of mech, apparantly in this case just arms being driven to angle to given positions at desired points of rotation. Many wild scenarii spring to mind, but in the cases described above, if at least two weights slide simultaneously outwards/inwards alternately moving weight far from/close to axis/hub, the device might be considered balanced, likewise it would be balanced in the expanding/contracting mechanism formed a "round" pulley wheel or whatever. In the lever scenario, hard to see where force could come from if no imbalance or heavier half of wheel on descending side, but maybe the definition of imbalance is not what it is usually assumed to be.

Anyway, nice to read about this, but crosswords and mysteries get a bit boring in short order, so maybe Trevor will either describe the device fully, or decide to reveal it at a later specified date :) Whatever, best of luck !

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ovyyus,

Get a pivoting lever then lift it, then let it go then get 40 levers then lift them all one at a time and let them go one at a time is there any free energy there no! because you did as much work as gravity or did gravity do as much work as you?

Then put the 40 levers on a wheel 20 on one side and 20 on the other side now you can lift them using counterbalance reducing your work but the work done by gravity is the same as when you lifted them one at a time, so is gravity supplying input energy well as it is doing work on the levers then yes it must be!

I tried to keep it simple but as you know there more to it than that, you would need to latch and release them at the right time, or in the case of hydraulic pistons you need a pressure release which latches the lever until the piston fluid is up to the pressure you need to do work.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Nicbordeaux,

Good idea,

Quoted! Anyway, nice to read about this, but crosswords and mysteries get a bit boring in short order, so maybe Trevor will either describe the device fully, or decide to reveal it at a later specified date :) Whatever, best of luck !

I will come back to this when I get my drawing finished but thank for the forums help in not understanding it as that means my description sucks!

So it needs a better explanation of it from me so thanks to the forum I will return to this in about three weeks.

[ovyyus]

...now you can lift them using counterbalance reducing your work but the work done by gravity is the same as when you lifted them one at a time...

Using a counterbalance to more easily lift a weight requires that you must eventually reset (lift) the counterbalance. I therefore see no special advantage.

[nicbordeaux]

Hi Nicbordeaux,

Good idea,

Quoted! Anyway, nice to read about this, but crosswords and mysteries get a bit boring in short order, so maybe Trevor will either describe the device fully, or decide to reveal it at a later specified date :) Whatever, best of luck !

I will come back to this when I get my drawing finished but thank for the forums help in not understanding it as that means my description sucks!

So it needs a better explanation of it from me so thanks to the forum I will return to this in about three weeks.

Hi Trevor,

No offence was intended, been in the same situation myself, words can't convey the full meaning particularly if you have a concept which you fully understand but which differs a bit from "normal" thinking, you assume behavior patterns to be obvious, for others, not so. Therefore, the choice is sometimes "oh, forget it, I'll reveal all later; forget it, I shall never reveal; I shall turn this device into a ray of mass destruction and remove offending parties" (which then raises the question of whom you decide not to remove :) , and I'd be most grateful if you could avoid removing South West France, even if it is full of bulbous red-nosed Brit ex-pats.

N.

[neptune]

@ Trevor. Could you come up withan animation, or perhaps get someone to do it for you please>
?

[murilo]

Trevor said: ''Hi murilo,
This is off topic! but I have just been working in brazil I loved it, I wish we could have meet as we both believe in free energy.''

Trevor, since you have been working in my country and you loved it and if you also believe in FE... this makes you now a really good and fine guy!
( for me, at least! )
Cheers. Muliro

[greendoor]

Trevor - thanks for your full reply to my questions. I am genuinely interested in understanding your idea, and I am pre-disposed to believe that there is free energy available from gravity. I'm actually a skeptic from two points of view: i'm skeptical of some aspects of accepted physics 'laws' (especially the assumptions that the 'Energy' concept are based on) that deny the possibility of perpetual motion. But there is a fundamental core of Newtonian physics laws that can't be denied, and for that reason i'm skeptical of most PM inventions that are not backed by repeatable experiments (such as Pequaide's excellent experimental work).

Sorry if i've gone off on tangents - I really want to stay on track and understand what you are presenting.

... you are looking at the centre of gravity of each lever when you should look at the centre of gravity of the wheel! Example there is 20 levers on one side of the wheel and 20 levers on the other side, all the lever are connected by the 40 pivots and that is where the weight is suspended off the wheel so where is the centre of gravity in relation to the wheel ? in the middle of the wheel ! That is the true weight of the wheels centre of gravity, now lets look at the levers centre of gravity this is false weight as the levers pivot at the rim of the wheel and the pull of there centre of gravity is driven into the wheel through the pivot connect so there is only a percentage of out of balance weight due to the lever positions which is reduced even more if the wheels diameter is increased this is why the out of balance wheel has been so hard to discover because of people thinking the false weight is true weight! When most of these attempts at the out of balance wheel wherein a near balanced state but not many people measured just how close to a true balance that was (so would not take much energy to rotate) ...

Trevor - I struggle with what you are suggesting here. As far as I know, gravity acts on all atoms in a physical mass, and the location of that mass is undeniable. Therefore, the Centre of Gravity can only be in one place. I admit that CoG is only a mathematical abstraction of the average effect of the combined forces - but the idea seems to work in practice. There is no way that I know of that can shift the apparant CoG.

For example - a very simple experiment would be a balanced see-saw. We could take a heavy weight capable of over-balancing the see-saw, and experiment with supporting this weight via different physical connections to the see-saw. If the CoG of the weight is over the left hand side, it will make the left hand side go down. Even if we support this via a connection to the right hand side of the see-saw - we can't fool the CoG into acting anywhere else.

For this reason I suspect that what you are proposing is fundamentally wrong.

...lets now look at the input of the levers, when the levers fall that is true weight falling x the leverage ratio! There may be more kinetic energy gained from one falling lever than could be hoped for from an out of balance wheel but only if it is tapped! As the lever falls because the fulcrum pivot is the same as the lever pivot the leverage can be tapped with out losing weight of the pivot so the wheels centre of gravity has not altered! When the wheel is rotated it is a near true balance state so does not take much input energy to rotate and the levers true weights are in counterbalance state on there pivots irrespective of each levers centre of gravity although some lever systems will fair better than other and I think the transverse levers will be the best as the lever centre of gravity would always be over the rim so to speak.

Yes - falling weights gain kinetic energy. But we need ALL of the kinetic energy, and then some, to raise that fallen weight back up again. That is always the problem with any gravity wheel. Tapping the energy of a fall has never been the problem. Getting the weight back up again is always the problem.

A multitude of levers, as far as I know, can't solve this problem. Every single lever that falls must be raised up again - so there is no strength in numbers. Ultimately, the forces acting on every atom must be fully accounted for.

In my mind - the force of gravity is effectively unlimited and available for as long as we need. So I am very open to the idea that this force can be turned in motion - but how?

My personal belief is that the force of gravity acting on every atom on earth never goes away, but is constant acting down/inwards - causing stress on the earth, right down to the core. If an atom is allowed to fall freely, that stress on the Earth goes away, and is replaced by Acceleration of that mass. Therefore, I believe that gravity causes EITHER stress or Acceleration (or any conservative combination in between).

This means I believe your theory that a weight can BOTH fall (accelerate) and still provide stress (weight or downwards force) is also wrong.

In my mind - I can fully accept that gravity can spin a Bessler wheel - and in doing so, it will effectively weight less. There would be less stress placed on the Earth below it. This is how I rationalise gravity powering a wheel.

If you have discovered how to make this work, I am all ears. But i'm not seeing the principle at work here - yet.

[rlortie]

greendoor,

Having been in private communication with Trevor over a period of months I feel that I would be violating my code of ethics, I hope you appreciate this.

In an attempt to for you to understand his design. I will say that you are obviously speed reading his statements reflecting on your long set biased thoughts.

You have wrapped your above post around two of Trevor's quotes. If you really wish to learn, read these quotes with an open mind and forget the traditional height for width scenario.

The weights do not move the wheel, the wheel moves the weights keeping them constantly falling. The kinetic energy is captured to turn the wheel. As Trevor states 'the wheel is always in near balance'.

Each weight becomes momentarily static when it reaches 12:00 and 6:00 not unlike an arrow shot straight up into the air stopping before it begins to fall, or a pendulum reaching the amplitude of its swing.

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Ralph...

Each weight becomes momentarily static when it reaches 12:00 and 6:00 not unlike an arrow shot straight up into the air stopping before it begins to fall, or a pendulum reaching the amplitude of its swing.

That makes sense as far as the low speed. In and of itself, this is a no go and I think Trevor makes this point. So, what is pushing it over....hydraulics? I guess I'm confused as to who is driving....the hydraulic system or the levers?


Steve

[greendoor]

Fair enough Ralph. I appreciate your need to respect confidentiality. I'm only trying to understand what Trevor is trying to communicate.

I agree that I can only see things through my long set biased thoughts. This is what humans do - and nothing is more long set or biased than the orthodox laws of physics. At least i'm prepared to consider that these laws have missed something major enough to allow the possibility of PM.

I appreciate that the wheel is basically balanced, so we are looking for a very small percentage of the mass to be falling at any one time. That small percentage still needs to be raised again.

So these lever's are exploiting the weightless points in a pendulum cycle? Like the Milkovic Two Stage Oscillator, but a multiple lever rotary version? If so, wouldn't the basic principle be easier to prove with a single lever? I appreciate that multiplying the number of levers multiplies the effect - maybe even exponentially - but if there is no positive effect on a single lever it's hard to see how this can ever be multiplied into useful motion ... zero x infinity to the power of infinity = zero ...

Then again - I think Bessler hinted that the parts have a synergistic effect ... I would love to stand corrected. Just can't see any new paths to explore yet ...

[FunWithGravity2]

Here is my 2 cents, sorry.

Trevor has built a see saw that is 10 feet long with 2 200lb men at eqaul distance from the pivot. It only takes a bystander the slightest of touch to push either of the men up or down, maybe 3.5% of their total body weight in force. He thinks he can get 200lbs of down force on a hydraulic system placed under the men to push just that 3.5% he needs to push down on one man or the other.

I remember seeing your site up some time ago with not much change in it or advancement in your theory or any POP that would help anyone understand your ideas any better. I did like your big balanced ferris wheel and think that you were heading down a descent path of discovery, but then you popped up again with nothing new.

Show me the money.

Dave

[greendoor]

Trevor has built a see saw that is 10 feet long with 2 200lb men at eqaul distance from the pivot. It only takes a bystander the slightest of touch to push either of the men up or down, maybe 3.5% of their total body weight in force. He thinks he can get 200lbs of down force on a hydraulic system placed under the men to push just that 3.5% he needs to push down on one man or the other.

I hope there is far more to this than what is described here. In a balanced system such as this, of course you can lift a massive weight for very little force ... because at the same time you are dropping an equally massive weight by the same distance. The CoG is not changing (or maybe just moving sideways, which requires little effort).

The folly of this would become apparant if you tried to get useful work out of the device. If, for example, one weight was a person who used this device as an elevator and then walked away from the device. Yes - he got a free ride to the top, but you are now stuck with an equally heavy weight which has fallen by the same height, and now requires lifting back up.

This principle is used in cable car systems, where one car going up is counterbalanced by another car going down. It keeps the energy costs down to a minimum - but ultimately there can be no free energy.

Somehow I doubt that this experiment is accurately describing Trevor's idea ... but maybe if we can describe the ways in which we are confused, Trevor can find ways to address any areas of confusion ...