Its a runner!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all, At last I can post drawings!

I believe this is a runner, I know I should not say this without a working model, but as hydraulics are out of my price range it will never be built so you will have to work it out for your selves, or I can sit on it for another 7 years, thus I will show it.

New drawings of the Multi Lever Phenomenon.
The drawing below shows that if multi levers are mounted on a wheel,  the wheel would be in a near balance state that would require a small amount of kinetic energy to rotate the wheel in comparison to the large amount of gravity's kinetic energy released by falling levers due to rotating the wheel, this is just simple mechanical advantage from using counter balance weights,  equal and opposite levers on each side of the wheel, and using the levers equal and opposite leverage energy (gravity kinetic energy x leverage) to drive the wheel. The surplus rotary torque can be used to drive a generator!

To start the wheel a external Hydraulic pump is used to fill the wheel mounted Hydraulic accumulators, then the external pump is disconnected and the Hydraulic motors flow valves are opened and the wheel starts turning with a quarter of a turn in hand, the Hydraulic accumulators hold sufficient fluid for a quarter of a turn.
The lever weight would only need to be 5,000 pounds to activate the pistons, but so the pistons pressure is reached quickly and the levers fall early the levers weight is 7,716.05 pounds, thus negative friction is countered.

Note, to match the hydraulic fluid flow rate at 4 RPM using Electric powered HPU 0350 hydraulic pump would require 9.14 pumps with a install power of 200KW = 1.828 Megawatts!!! divided by 3.5 so gravity's input is at leased 0.52 megawatts as the list pumps work at 350 bars and my device works at 100 bars = 3.5 difference!
Pump info, HPU0350 install power = 200KW, Max flow rate 264 litres per minute, max pressure 350 bar.

Physics says that the energy that you would get from a weighted lever falling, from its raised position A to its lower position B would be equal to the energy required to raise the lever back to position A!

But what if you use geometry to raise the lever to remove the direct lifting of the lever thus replacing a direct lift with a counterbalance rotary lift, a lever falls on one side and its potential energy is turned into kinetic energy and then hydraulic force to rotate the wheel, but as the lever falls to it raised position for the other side it has regained it potential energy ready to fall on the other side of the wheel just by simply rotating the near balanced wheel.

Because the wheel is driven from the outer rim means there is what I call back to the middle leverage, this means there is a larger torque at the wheel centre shaft, the other advantage is that the negative lever forces are countered before they could do the same.
The centre of gravity on this lever option would be the centre of the wheel give or take 5 degrees either side of the centre mark, so this would also be easily countered by a outer rim drive system, given that the wheel need only rotate less than 3 degrees before another lever falls.

The lever option above would weigh about 350 tonne and would rotate at about 4 RPM, it could only drive a 400 kilowatt generator though, but that would be 24 hours a day!
Anybody that think the above lever system is not in a near balanced state should remove the hydraulic motors and use it as a out of balance wheel, but here is no recorded out of balance lever wheel, this is because they always balance! 
To find out just how little energy is required to rotate a balanced wheel take a look at the  Falkirk Wheel 800 tons.

Fact the levers can produce the volume of fluid required.
Fact the hydraulic motors produce more than enough torque to rotate the wheel.
Fact the wheel does comply with the Energy Conservation Laws, but only if Gravity is seen as the energy input and not as gravity is nothing, considering the world is rotating all the time due to gravity it appears to me that this is one of its natural functions, thus rotating falling mass in a gravity field should not contravene natural laws.
Fact for my design to function it requires the conservative force of gravity to pull down the levers on both sides of the wheel.

I will be posting a transverse 64 lever option here when and if I get the time, as I believe that it would be one of the best lever systems for balance.

Also instead of a hydraulic motor drive system, this system may be used to drive fluid weights in reservoir at the outer rim or buoyancy reservoirs at the outer rim, but is not preferred as there is no benefit in doing so!

Edit, remove tempary message.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

More drawings,

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

More drawings,

Edit, in this drawing I ask the reader to rotate the drawing 180 degrees,
when the drawing is being rotated 180 degrees, count to 62 as that is how many levers would fall if the wheel was rotated 180 degrees, 63 and 64 would be the two to fall from there shown new position.

I hope you see what I see regards Trevor

[triplock]

Trevor mate,

Quickly change your title to 'It might be a Runner'. ;-)

Chris

[jim_mich]

I agree with Triplock! The title is a wrong until proven to work.

[jim_mich]

Start with the facts:

A 3 ton weight and 0.5 ton lever driving two 78.75 square inch surface area pistons at a 22.5 ratio attempting to produce 100 bar pressure.


Using my trusty 1989 vintage HP 48SX scientific programmable calculator I find:

100 bar = 1450.3773773 PSI
1450.3773773 PSI × 78.75 square inch = 114,217.218462 pounds of piston force.
114,217 Lbs force × 2 pistons = 228,434 pounds of two pistons force.
228,434 Lbs force / 22.5 lever ratio = 10,152.6 Lbs of weight needed on end of lever.
10,152.6 Lbs / 2000 = 5 tons of weight needed on end of lever to produce 100 bar pressure.

The weight of the pistons is not taken into account. They must be rather heavy to withstand 1450 PSI.

These numbers are calculated with the lever at perfectly horizontal, which obviously only happens at one position at each side. The rest of the time the lever is at less than optimum angle thus producing less than the calculated leveraged force on the pistons.

When proper correct engineering is performed with hydraulic proposals they all boil down to leveraging just like all other proposed gravity wheels.

Sorry, it will not work. Go back and learn, learn, learn.

Edit: This is calculations for just the pressure. The weight of the hydraulic oil inside the pistons also needs to be lifted along with the pistions being lifted.

[getterdone]

I also agree with Triplock, I have a runner means a actual working model.
Nothing else, not even simulation, only with a working model should that claim be made

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim_mich,

As there is free speech where I come from, I still believe its a runner but the forum can believe what ever it wants to believe I just brought it to the table and any one who questions it will have to learn something from it to answer there own questions.

I believe you have miss programmed your trusty device, any one should be able to see that one piston is on a compression stroke and the other is on a decompression stroke, as the lever falls on one side of the wheel it compresses one piston and decompresses the other, but when the lever reaches the other side of the wheel and falls back then the decompressed piston becomes the compressed piston and so on, so I believe you have wrongly doubled your forces so divide by 2 and you will be some where near.

1 tonne (metric ton) = 1,000kg = 0.984 long ton, or a short ton (2,000 pound) = 0.907 tonne. I added extra weight to take care of piston friction, as I do not have a trusty program wrong thing, also the levers do not need to reach there optimum position because of there extra weight so can fall early.

The leverage of the falling lever on both sides of the wheel is transferred to drive the wheel at the outer rim and that is not a advantage? I would think it is a advantage for wheel torque.

I believe you see what you want to. If I am slightly out with my calculation with a little adjustment the ratios and weights can be made into a win scenario, so please take a more positive look.

The fluid on one side of the wheel will be in a balanced state with the fluid on the other side of the wheel, as one cylinder compresses the other decompresses so the same volume will be about all the lever pivots, with that said there will be a very small amount of friction loses with in the pipes but not enough to stop the wheel.

So I believe the facts still stand! Please feel free to go over my design as it can only help the readers.

Regards Trevor

Edit, the heavy pistons equally mounted will give it a fly wheel effect.

Start with the facts:

A 3 ton weight and 0.5 ton lever driving two 78.75 square inch surface area pistons at a 22.5 ratio attempting to produce 100 bar pressure.


Using my trusty 1989 vintage HP 48SX scientific programmable calculator I find:

100 bar = 1450.3773773 PSI
1450.3773773 PSI × 78.75 square inch = 114,217.218462 pounds of piston force.
114,217 Lbs force × 2 pistons = 228,434 pounds of two pistons force.
228,434 Lbs force / 22.5 lever ratio = 10,152.6 Lbs of weight needed on end of lever.
10,152.6 Lbs / 2000 = 5 tons of weight needed on end of lever to produce 100 bar pressure.

The weight of the pistons is not taken into account. They must be rather heavy to withstand 1450 PSI.

These numbers are calculated with the lever at perfectly horizontal, which obviously only happens at one position at each side. The rest of the time the lever is at less than optimum angle thus producing less than the calculated leveraged force on the pistons.

When proper correct engineering is performed with hydraulic proposals they all boil down to leveraging just like all other proposed gravity wheels.

Sorry, it will not work. Go back and learn, learn, learn.

Edit: This is calculations for just the pressure. The weight of the hydraulic oil inside the pistons also needs to be lifted along with the pistions being lifted.

[DrWhat]

Trevor you should change the title otherwise you will lose respect and credibility. Just a friendly suggestion.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi DrWhat,

Thanks I know you mean well,

But I do believe it will run and for me to say anything else would be a lie!

I have seen your thinking and some of your builds and believe my design should be of interest to you.

With much respect Trevor

[jim_mich]

Hi Jim_mich,

As there is free speech where I come from, I still believe it’s a runner but the forum can believe what ever it wants to believe ...

But I do believe it will run and for me to say anything else would be a lie!

Saying that it is a runner is a false statement. Since most of us here on the Bessler Wheel Forum are (and have been for a long long time) searching for a "working wheel" or as some say a "runner" we take offense when some newbie arrives and claims that his wheel "works" or is a "runner" when in fact all he has is some paper drawing of some concept that he alone "believes" is a runner. We do not mind if you think it is a runner or working wheel, for we all have ideas that we think "might work". But do not state the it IS a runner or working wheel when you don't have an actual running or working wheel model built and tested and proven to be such.

Now, as to the design. Yes, after I post realized that I probably doubled the cylinder volume by mistake. And as you point out I used an American ton instead of the metric tonne. But that was a very quick maybe 2 minute "off the top of my head" calculation.

Each rotation the wheel lifts the levered weights and then they drop causing the pressure and volume flow. Though you say otherwise, you are lifting the leveraged weights each rotaion and then they fall producing the pressure and volume, which you then run through the hydraulic motors in an attempt to close the loop. It is not much different than using mechanical levers to lift weights.

These type of wheels always have problems. Either the volume is not big enough or the pressure is not big enough. When you get both the volume and the pressure just right then the output exactly matches the input.

[Tarsier79]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... Phenomenon

Is this the same design?

[AB Hammer]

Trevor

It will not be a lie if you change it to.

I believe its going to be a runner!

This way it is an honest opinion and gives time for proof.

Alan

[Richard]

Thanks for that AB. Hope I did my post proper to this forum.

thanx

richard

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Alan,

Thanks a lot Alan, But if I back down now then nobody will look at it and argue it as then they will learn from it, what I am saying here is prove me wrong because pressing the red button means you do not have a valid augment, some one out there is weak, so much for discussion to find a working solution, if I cannot find it here then what would be the point of this forum!

Hi all, Do not reach for the red button just prove me wrong that should not be to hard, that's if I am wrong.

Thanks Alan I respect your help but if I am right then they will take me back. Regards Trevor