The Dynamic Juggler

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Triplock,

If you intend to make a out of balance wheel out of multi levers forget it!
If you entend to make a balanced wheel with out of balance force then you are on the right track!

Regards Trevor

not in an unkind way trevor, but I concur with greendoor.

A few times I've started the patent process as I was absolutely convinced of my 'success', but it did take a third party to wake me up.

I have my own multi-lever ideas in my head, but I've learnt the hard way that without a working model, those ideas are 'worthless'.

kind regards trevor,

chris

[triplock]

My design relies of an outer balance torque on an otherwise balanced wheel

Chris

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Greendoor,

Very funny!

Trevor - I certainly did not choose to "lecher" you ... or even to lecture you. I believe I understand hydraulic systems a good deal better than you do. But enough about me.

I hope I am giving you a friendly wake up call, because somebody has to tell you that you are not making sense.

"Do I think that hydro power is over unity?" - of course not. Do you? Hydro Power is also certainly not "gravity power" either - even though gravity is actively involved. Hydro Power is very much an example of Solar Power. It is the solar powered water cycle that lifts the water from sea level back up to the clouds, from where it can refill the lake that powers the damn.

Something that i'm not sure you you fully understand yet is that water is mass, and mass has to be lifted before it can fall. If you understood this, you would not suggest that hydro power is an example of gravity power. Hydro power is simply exploiting a natural process that lifts water mass every day.

You seem certain that buoyancy can lift mass for free - but it can't. For example - let's say you deflate a rubber balloon and drop it into a tank of water. You could then inflate the balloon, and watch it rise to the top again. If you expanded the balloon by - say 10 litres - then you would find that it could displace 10 litres of water. That's 10kg of mass. That's quite a force which you could use to drive a load. But what I don't think you are considering is that in order to inflate the balloon by 10 litres, you have to displace 10 litres of water. In other words - you don't get out any more energy than what you put into it first. With friction losses, the efficiency can never exceed 100%. Clearly an under-unity energy transformation. No matter how you slice it, or how you over-complicate it, or how you scale it up - buoyancy cannot be a source of surplus energy.

Your last post was very emotional. Designed to flatter your ego and try to make use feel sorry for you. I don't fall for it. You say you have given the world a gift - and that may be so, but so far it is not a gift of free energy that you claim. So swallow your pride and admit you've stuffed up. You won't be able to move on until you face yourself honestly.

What I say might seem hurtful - but I don't mean it that way. I'm trying to help you see that you have crossed a line, and this is why you haven't had the success you want.

I think i've said enough - just think about it.

My reply just as funny!

Trevor - I certainly did not choose to "lecher" you ... or even to lecture you. I believe I understand hydraulic systems a good deal better than you do. But enough about me.

My reply Well Greendoor I did not ask you to! If you under stand hydraulic then you know that with a good input force you can make fluid rise!

I hope I am giving you a friendly wake up call, because somebody has to tell you that you are not making sense.

My reply maybe not too you!


"Do I think that hydro power is over unity?" - of course not. Do you? Hydro Power is also certainly not "gravity power" either - even though gravity is actively involved. Hydro Power is very much an example of Solar Power. It is the solar powered water cycle that lifts the water from sea level back up to the clouds, from where it can refill the lake that powers the damn.

My reply, over unity is impossible, and I believe that hydro power is nearly 100% gravity input as fluid is weightless with out it!

Something that i'm not sure you you fully understand yet is that water is mass, and mass has to be lifted before it can fall. If you understood this, you would not suggest that hydro power is an example of gravity power. Hydro power is simply exploiting a natural process that lifts water mass every day.

My reply, I know you do not do experiment, but try this one! Get a plastic bag and a 2.4 metre hose, place one end of the hose inside the bag then seal with duct tape, then fill the bag with fluid, then hold the other end of the hose over your head, the stand on the bag, I say that applying a force to a reservoir that fluid will rise and you will get wet! you tell me that it will not and I need a wake up call, let put it to the test as you keep telling me to prove it with easy experiment that can show ever one that I am right, this would be a start!

You seem certain that buoyancy can lift mass for free - but it can't. For example - let's say you deflate a rubber balloon and drop it into a tank of water. You could then inflate the balloon, and watch it rise to the top again. If you expanded the balloon by - say 10 litres - then you would find that it could displace 10 litres of water. That's 10kg of mass. That's quite a force which you could use to drive a load. But what I don't think you are considering is that in order to inflate the balloon by 10 litres, you have to displace 10 litres of water. In other words - you don't get out any more energy than what you put into it first. With friction losses, the efficiency can never exceed 100%. Clearly an under-unity energy transformation. No matter how you slice it, or how you over-complicate it, or how you scale it up - buoyancy cannot be a source of surplus energy.

My reply, as air is a fluid please repeat the above experiment!

Your last post was very emotional. Designed to flatter your ego and try to make use feel sorry for you. I don't fall for it. You say you have given the world a gift - and that may be so, but so far it is not a gift of free energy that you claim. So swallow your pride and admit you've stuffed up.
My reply, it was not emotional it was a act of self defence as this is!
I will repeat this again! (I did not like your above post! Please do not try to pity the fool me again! As I am nobody’s fool just genuine! I Know when people are messing with me so stop it!)
What I am asking here is not for you or anybody to feel sorry for me! it was just to stop you asking people to feel sorry for me! To put it simply stop f*****g with me, if you are not why do you twist my words!

You won't be able to move on until you face yourself honestly.

My reply, I think its you that needs to move on and find another victim, or be honest to your self Trevor may just be right and that’s the problem!

What I say might seem hurtful - but I don't mean it that way. I'm trying to help you see that you have crossed a line, and this is why you haven't had the success you want.

My reply it is very hurtful, because I do not do mind game! I just say as I think it is and I am hurt that I have to waste my time with this crap! People may say you where only trying to help, but I say help to put me down that’s all! I have had great success more than I hope for, I understand Physic now and not the stuff they teach the stuff you can only learn from experiments!

I think i've said enough - just think about it.

My reply, well I did think about it, and here’s my thoughts! Thanks all the same but please do not worry about me as its my time I am wasting, and will be wasting some time on a bit of windsurfing at the weekend!

Regards Trevor

[greendoor]

Trevor, Mate! Your understanding of physics is about as 'fluid' as your spelling.

You have to realise that english comprehension and physics comprehension are rather similar. They both rely on the accurate use of established words to communicate thoughts and ideas. You are pretty much using any old word, and things get a bit lost in the translation.

It is not me who is twisting your words. You can afford to re-invent English or Physics when you can demonstrate an experiment that defies accepted knowledge and creates the need to invent a new word or law. Until then, you would be best to learn the basics so you can communicate with others.

I really don't mean to be hurtful at all. If you have ideas that could really deliver free energy as you claim, I want to see you succeed and be recognised for it. BUT - you have to stop shooting yourself in the head.

Here are some helpful hints - and trust me, i'm not messing with you:

1 - common internet etiquette suggests that people who use a lot of exclamation marks are either spammers or idiots! There is no better way to lose the respect of your audience than to use exclamation marks at the end of each sentence! If you could stop doing this, it would annoy people like me less! It's a small thing, but it really matters!
2 - Don't waste energy on pointless arguments about words (because trust me, you are no expert). For example: you are making claims of "free energy" devices, and yet you insist that "overunity is impossible". Don't be an idiot. The commonly understood terminology for free energy devices is "overunity". It does not mean greater than 100% efficiency, which I agree is impossible. Established science already considers you an idiot. Don't offend the other idiots like me who think that free energy/overunity IS possible. Otherwise nobody will be interested in what you propose to offer.
3 - be careful what you claim. You are on legal thin ice. As it is, you would be considered a business liability and not trustworthy, merely on the basis of what you claim. You can't back up your claims - i've tried to get some sense out of you, but it's just not forthcoming. So take it on the chin, and come up with WORKING MODELS to justify your outlandish claims.








Windsurfing is a good idea, I think.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Greendoor,

I do agree that my English is poor.

I did use to think that over unity and free energy were the same, it cost me dear when I went to a patent office hearing.

Over unity is not free energy, over unity it is trying to get energy from nothing, Science takes a very dim view of such over unity claims, thus to claim such a thing would put someone on legal thin ice. So I say over unity is impossible.

I use the kinetic energy form gravity to power my device as gravity is free, until they Tax it, and they will believe me.

If you could stop wasting my time then perhaps I could post something of importance.

Regards Trevor.

Edit, spelling,

[justsomeone]

Trevor said:

" My reply, I know you do not do experiment, but try this one! Get a plastic bag and a 2.4 metre hose, place one end of the hose inside the bag then seal with duct tape, then fill the bag with fluid, then hold the other end of the hose over your head, the stand on the bag, I say that applying a force to a reservoir that fluid will rise and you will get wet! you tell me that it will not and I need a wake up call, let put it to the test as you keep telling me to prove it with easy experiment that can show ever one that I am right, this would be a start! "


Trevor, take the experiment one more step. Use the force of the water coming out of the hose to lift yourself back up to your starting height.

[greendoor]

Good point justsomeone - I missed that particular lie. I never denied that hydraulics work the way that hydraulics work ... Trevor is making up lies again.

Trevor - you are wasting my time. I'm just trying to offer you some friendly advice. It's childish behaviour like that last retort that makes it very clear to me that you have nothing useful to offer.

I am not the reason that - so far - you have not been able to "post something of importance". The real reason is that you do NOT have any working, verifiable model. Neither do I - but I am not the one making outrageous claims. There are a lot of very clever people here who also believe that Bessler had a running wheel, and have various claims and attempts at discovering it. The wise people I respect all avoid making outrageous claims such as you are making.

To most people actively involved in free energy research, the term "overunity" means more energy output than energy input. Since science considers Gravity to be a conserved force, a working gravity engine would be called an overunity device. Gravity is a Force. It is not considered to be an energy source. I personally have my reasons to believe that Force trumps Energy, but I don't believe you have the necessary education to understand the terminology involved. *

The main reason you had trouble getting a patent was because you don't have a working model that would prove you have a patentable idea. Unproven claims such as what you are making are frowned on by society, because they amount to fraud and deception. Maybe you have even deceived yourself. But the law is only protecting you, and protecting us from people like you.

* For anyone following who wants to know why I believe this - consider this:

Energy depends on Velocity, and Velocity is Relative. No matter how fast a mass is moving, we can always choose an inertial reference frame that is traveling at the same Velocity, and write the Velocity off as being zero. Which means the Kinetic Energy of that mass is now Zero. This concurs with the basic idea of relativity that any object at a fixed velocity is as good as being at rest.

But the state of Acceleration can never be written off as effectively nothing. Acceleration is something - regardless of inertial reference frame chosen. Acceleration is significant. For example - we can be traveling in a jet airliner at 1000 km/h, calmly drinking tea without any fuss. But if the plane violently decelerates, or violently accelerates, stuff is thrown around the cabin, damage can be done - Stress and Strain are invoked.

Force can cause Acceleration. The way I see it, Force either causes Acceleration or it causes Stress/Strain. Which suggests to me that the state of being Stresses/Strained is actually a dynamic state, equivalent to the state of Acceleration. But that will probably brand me as a heretic - so be it.

Anyhow - in my mind, Force is more powerful than Energy, because Force can cause Acceleration, which cannot be denied. Whereas Energy is a number game, and the numbers can be written off arbitrarily depending on reference frame.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi,

take a look at MT 51,52,53,54 and 55.

They look a lot like Besslers Wheel, look at the ratchet levers, then compare them to how the Dynamic Juggler would use the levers there maybe a better lever reset (lifting levers) system there.

The leverage or the pendulum could reset the levers, just a thought as to why the pendulum is used on a lot of his wheels.

I do intend to post the gravity driven hydraulic motor when I get the time, but I try to place a time limit on this forum, as this forum will take you over if you let it.

Regards Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Justsomeone,

Take it one more step and put the raised water into another reservoir and let gravity pull it down, then take it two more steps put the reservoirs on a wheel with lot of reservoir with a balanced lever system wherein adding more makes the lever system more balanced, so add as many levers that it would take to obtain the force require to replace Greendoors weight, if you then end up with full reservoir on one side of the wheel and empty reservoirs on there other side and the wheel is 12 foot dynamiter there a good chance that rotary torque can be generated however Greendoor wanted me to start with more simple experiments so I did you know simple experiments the ones he can understand!

Regards Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Greendoor,

Did I lie when I suggested by standing on the bag full of water attached to a hose held at head height the water would raise and come out of the open end, if I lied then a apology would be in order would it not! I expect no less of you thank you I await you your apology.


Regards Trevor

Edit wrong word.
Edit , you did imply that a did not understand hydraulics, could you please explain to me where and when I made this lie about hydraulic as if I have lied then I will need to apologize for it.

Edit, Greendoor, you came here did you not! For what purpose?

[ovyyus]

...Trevor - you are wasting my time... blah, blah, blah...

Greendoor, who asked for your time?

Trevor chooses not to be forced to see things your way. A choice worth fighting for, IMO.

[greendoor]

Greendoor, who asked for your time?

Trevor is wasting all of our time, by directing traffic to his website and promising great inventions and making grandiose claims but failing to explain anything properly.

Trevor chooses not to be forced to see things your way. A choice worth fighting for, IMO.

I'm not forcing anyone to see things my way. I would like for more people to understand Pequaide's theory and experiments, and I admit to being forceful when I see his good work being dismissed by people who just don't want to consider it properly.

My issue with Trevor is not that he is presenting ideas I don't believe could work. But that he is presenting them in the form of outrageous lies. He doesn't say - "look - here is an idea that might work". He presents them as "look - here is a guaranteed runner that just needs investment, and you people are all morons for not wanting my generous gift of free energy. And by the way, overunity is impossible". [Paraphrased - obviously - but that's how I see his message].

I find that annoying, ok?

[greendoor]

Hi Greendoor, Did I lie when I suggested by standing on the bag full of water attached to a hose held at head height the water would raise and come out of the open end ..."

No Trevor - that part is true. I think most pre-school kids get that part.

if I lied then a apology would be in order would it not!

Yes Trevor - if you lied, I think you should apologise.

I expect no less of you thank you I await you your apology.

So you think I owe you an apology? What for? For exposing your errors? For daring to suggest that you have lied to us?

you did imply that a did not understand hydraulics, could you please explain to me where and when I made this lie about hydraulic as if I have lied then I will need to apologize for it.

Trevor - just read your posts in this thread - what I actually wrote, and what you actually wrote about me.

I suggested that you do not know enough about buoyancy, which is why you are making outrageous claims of free energy coming from the use of buoyant floats. I suggested that you are not yet understanding that a fluid is still Mass. If you want to inflate a collapsed float immersed in a fluid, you will have to displace that fluid. This is exactly the same as lifting Mass upwards. It requires energy input. Then - the buoyant force that you hope to use for power output becomes avaialable. But the force is only available because the surrounding fluid is allowed to fall. So you are only getting back the energy that you expended by lifting that fluid mass at the point when you inflate the float.

Here is the part you wrote that I consider to be an outright lie:

"I say that applying a force to a reservoir that fluid will rise and you will get wet! you tell me that it will not and I need a wake up call,"

Your simple experiment is not something I have ever denied could work. It's so simple that obviously it will work ... but what is your point? What I said would not work is the bollocks about buoyancy providing free energy.

Show me a simple experiment that proves you can inflate a collapsed bag underwater, without lifting the Centre of Gravity of the displaced water. And prove that the buoyant force obtained is MORE than the force required to inflate that bag. THAT is what I said would not work. But i'm very willing for you to prove me wrong.

Greendoor, you came here did you not! For what purpose?

To learn about Bessler wheel related ideas. What do you come here for?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi greendoor,

I do believe the multi lever phenomenon driving hydraulics will work and will be posting it at the weekend.

I all so believe the multi lever phenomenon can make a buoyancy device work even though you have under estimated the forces that are require, my experiments on fluid transfer from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir would be 16 kg of force to move 1 litre of fluid a hight of 4m
that is a slow lift so with a fast lift you could double that, but with buoyancy you have the added force of water pressure so you may be looking at a force of 1kg per one square cm but even with that sort of force I still believe that the multi lever phenomenon could do it but it would take modern hydraulic to take care of the compression force and timing. you can increase the air pressure inside the reservoir to a greater pressure than the water pressure so then you would be compressing the reservoirs closed at the top of the wheel with the help of lesser water pressure! if 32 lever cannot do the job then add 32 more by adding more buoyancy in the lever compartment will counter the extra weight.

I do not see the point of building a buoyancy device as you can drive hydraulic motors but I could make it work!

When I post at the weekend I will explain how I found the multi lever phenomenon as this may help.

You have helped me explain my self better many times so I thank you for that and like to believe that is your motive.

Regards Trevor

Edit, spelling and missed words.

Edit, By using the word over unity to describe a gravity input may have killed my chance of getting a patent and cost me thousands of pounds, thus my strong view point on the words over unity!

[greendoor]

I look forward to that Trevor - no hard feelings at all. I will accept that buoyancy could be a part of a larger system that can deliver free energy. I just don't see that depending on buoyant force alone is enough. As you could tell from my defence of Pequaide's work, I choose to believe that gravity can be a source of free energy. I can't be certain of that until I see an experiment that demonstrates work being done with no other energy input. I'm hoping that you have found a solution that could work ...
Cheers!