The Dawn of Clean Energy

[Tarsier79]

You are right, a generator has no backwards torque, but requires force to change the magnetic field created in the coiled wire. If you have a 100% efficient motor and generator(doesn't exist) it requires the same amount of input as output. If your device increased force, this would be enough to lift more weight on the outer pivots, than the weight driving the axle.

(12V motors and alternators from cars are far from 100% efficient, and designed for a specific purpose. These alternators require high rpm to produce any decent current.)

Good luck

K

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Chris,

I believe in this design as I have felt the forces first hand, I believe that if a greater rotary force is applied to a generator then there would not be a backing force only a loss of force on the inputting rotary force that comes out of the other end of the generator as electricity, what about the force lost then, well that is replaced by the input of gravity acting on the levers, or the input off wind if on a wind turbine. there would only be a backing force ( more stalling than backing force ) if the levers leverage was not up to the job, so in this design once you know what the forces are needed to rotate the generators then you can design the lever system (geo genny) to be a greater force, then you just have to rotate the lever system in a gravity field.

As seen on the video one in, eight out, though the one in is greatly reduced once set in motion so there is room to design extra weight on the levers, the force transfer will happen on the levers and generators shafts that are on evenly mounted pivots so I see no extra load up on the wheel, only on the generators, as the levers forces were there at the start up of the device, the generators do not input force they input resistance.

If you use a gearing system to drive eight generators the force loss can only be replace by the input drive thus 9 in, 8 out. this is how people are seeing my design and not the above.

I also believe that you will believe, once you take a good look at it.

I will buy you Fish and Chip as it is now customary : )

Thanks Chris but the truth is I only believe in this design and the multi lever phenomenon, the other have not given up all there secret yet, as the R&D is on hold. All ways a pleasure if you agree or disagree.

Regards Trevor

Edit, resistance not residence. + (more stalling than backing force ).

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

You are right, a generator has no backwards torque, but requires force to change the magnetic field created in the coiled wire. If you have a 100% efficient motor and generator(doesn't exist) it requires the same amount of input as output. If your device increased force, this would be enough to lift more weight on the outer pivots, than the weight driving the axle.

(12V motors and alternators from cars are far from 100% efficient, and designed for a specific purpose. These alternators require high rpm to produce any decent current.)

Good luck

K

Hi K,

I might be in luck as I have a energy company interested so I may get a proper build done for me, the good thing about this design is it lends it self to wind turbine technology, I believe they have gearboxes already, also the drive technology is there already, so the R&D would be greatly reduced, it is the stress and strain side that needs sorting out and its way over my head.

I have rotated my wheel at 24 RPM and think any more would be pushing it, it maybe better to go for 12 RPM and gear it up.

I will keep you all posted on how I get on but these thing can take years to get going so I will give you up dates from time to time, that is if I am not cut out of the loop, as this design maybe on a oil companys shelve some where or a pat pending some where you just do not no if its your or not ever, you can only hope, if it is expired Patent then it would be free for everyone to build.

Thank very much for your input and your time as I need to be 100% and if I can foresee possible question then I can foresee possible answers.

Yours thankfully Trevor

PS do you know much about clocks as I think this device could be use to wind up springs to drive a wheel, I posted Besslers Wheel what a wind up, some time ago but I do not no much about clocks so could not figure the mech, I believe there could be something in it but without the push over wheels.

Edit, add, if it is expired Patent then it would be free for everyone to build.

[greendoor]

Trevor - I guess the electricity company are interested on account of your bizarre claims (you need to be careful from a legal perspective what claims you make, because it could be seen to be fraudulent from what i've observed).

I expect they will have an engineer assess you design - and I expect he will be as frustrated as we are in trying to understand you.

Sadly - you appear to be perpetrating the stereotype of free-energy inventors as being either idiots or fraudsters.

Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. If you could just calm down a little, and build a small scale working model that demonstrates your over-unity principle, you would be on much safer ground.

As it is - you have a history of bad ideas, poorly implemented - with bizarre claims about megawatts of power, when you can't even demonstrate 1 milliwatt of power at this stage. You then claim that you need massive capital investment to build on a large scale - which conveniently dodges the bullet, and allows you to blame society for your failings.

At least you aren't asking for money ... yet.

There's nothing wrong with being excited. Just think about the damage you can do by making false claims.

[alexjrgreen]

Exceptional claims require exceptional proof.

This is often quoted, but it's false. There isn't a double standard in science - every claim requires adequate proof.

It's peddled by people making apparently unexceptional claims to distract others from scrutinising them too closely.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Greendoor,

Please do not dump you lack of understanding on my shoulders as it is your problem not mine.

I do not like how you are twisting words to make them less than the truth.

You keep asking for simple experiments and when I show you one you tell me I need to make it more simple, then you claim to understand them, there is some thing wrong there.

I claim the experiment shows that eight lever pivots on the out side of the wheel is showing a gravity operated leverage force of between 11 to 12 kg I claim that it takes less than that to turn the wheel from 5.5cm off the wheels centre this is a lot less once set in motion, so I see a 1 to 8 ratio.

A wind turbines blades are design to match the generator, so my levers would have to be designed to match there generator.

You say how much you believe in free energy and as soon as someone is on to some thing out comes your shovel and you start pilling S**t on them with the exception of thoughs that cannot be tapped ( yet ), which Oil company is it you work for?

I think you will find that the multi lever phenomenon facts are still standing and have not been disproved and the balanced 32 lever was another simple experiment, look here 32 levers on a wheel it not turning so it must be in a state of balance. and yes the hydraulic piston are still to expensive to model it.

Greendoor wrote this,

Sadly - you appear to be perpetrating the stereotype of free-energy inventors as being either idiots or fraudsters.

I hope people see me as a genuine researcher, that is trying to show balanced wheels with out of balance torque concepts that may be useful,
along with our other search paths.

I apologize to the readers for Greendoors post and this post in reply to that post, as up to that point there was good constructive arguments on both for and against this design, and I believe that is what this forum was set up for, to throw in ideas and then have constructive arguments to fined the truth and see if there is potential in the design that will advance our thinking to solve Besslers Wheel, and the energy problems.

If it is seen that it is troublesome to post design this will stop people from sharing there designs, and both sides will lose the advantage of constructive arguments!

If anyone has any question about this design please post them as we all may learn something.

Regards Trevor

Edit, I had to rush off before I could finish this post, now finished.

[jim_mich]

Trevor,

In your video (first post of first page of this thread) you state that, "The concept has been proven" and you talk of a 1:8 rato. I just spent the last three hours very carefully looking at the video and writing this post and making some drawings. You show a fish scale being used to apply torque to rotate the wheel. Then you added weights and showed the greater force needed to rotate the wheel. Each time friction brings the wheel to a relatively quick stop. It is my opinion that you are simply measuring the force needed to overcome inertia and friction. As you add weight the inertial resistance increases. It is also my opinion that if you had no friction then the wheel, once started in motion, would simply continue to coast. When you add the eight generators then it will put a load on the wheel equal to the back-torque of the generators. If you then add one input motor it will need to overcome this back-torque. Since the rotational ratio between the input motor wheel and the output generators are 1:1 you simply end up with a very fancy complex gearing mechanism that accomplishes nothing. Yes it requires gravity to offset the back-torque of the generators, but it also requires forward torque of the motor.

Maybe the following drawings will make it clear? The smaller black wheel is the fixed location bike wheel. The blue wheel is the fixed location wheel which would have eight blue generators attached. Attached to each generator shaft you have a lever. The other end of these eight levers attach to the larger black circle which is a floating wheel. The floating wheel is held off to one side by the bike wheel. Rotating any wheel causes the other wheels to rotate. I've mentioned before that gears are just fancy levers. In this case you have done the reverse by substituting levers for gearing.

The shape of a lever makes no difference as to how the lever works, other than the lever weight mass being different, Thus we can substitute 'L' shaped levers for the straight levers, which I show in the second picture. This makes it much easier to see that the weight of the floating wheel simply holds the generator shafts from turning while the generators rotate with the blue wheel.

There will be a certain amount of back-torque from each of the eight generators. This back-torque will tend to lift the floating wheel. Any weight on the floating wheel will counter the back-torque. It does not matter where the weights are located on the floating wheel, for all of the weight will act the same. It could very well be a single weight at the center.

The method of using a bike wheel to keep the floating wheel off to one side could be replaced be a number of other methods. Simply attaching a lever between the bike axle and the floating wheel axle will accomplish the same thing. Or tie a string between the floating wheel axle and a fixed point off to the right side.

This is simply a very complex method of connecting eight smaller generators to a large motor using a 1:1 gear ratio. Nothing is gained. Much would be lost due to added friction from the complexity.

Just my opinion, which in this case I feel very very strongly that I'm right.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim_Mich,

First is there a generator back force or would it be a resistance to over come, this is a small resistance to start with and builds up with momentum.

I believe in this design as I have felt the forces first hand, I believe that if a greater rotary force is applied to a generator then there would not be a backing force only a loss of force on the inputting rotary force that comes out of the other end of the generator as electricity, what about the force lost then, well that is replaced by the input of gravity acting on the levers, or the input off wind if on a wind turbine. there would only be a backing force ( more stalling than backing force ) if the levers leverage was not up to the job, so in this design once you know what the forces are needed to rotate the generators then you can design the lever system (geo genny) to be a greater force, then you just have to rotate the lever system in a gravity field.

As seen on the video one in, eight out, though the one in is greatly reduced once set in motion so there is room to design extra weight on the levers, the force transfer will happen on the levers and generators shafts that are on evenly mounted pivots so I see no extra load up on the wheel, only on the generators, as the levers forces were there at the start up of the device, the generators do not input force they input resistance.

If you use a gearing system to drive eight generators the force loss can only be replace by the input drive thus 9 in, 8 out. this is how people are seeing my design and not the above.

Take a look at the video again and look at the last two readings on the first and second test, it is hard to get the right angle of attack right pulling on a peg and takes a bit of practice, I will weld a cog on the centre point and repeat these experiments pulling on a chain at the same angle and post them.

It takes 25 kg of force to pull the weight ring of the push over wheel, how much do you think it would take to pull the weighted ring of the push over wheel at one of the levers cogs? the point being that the resistance of the generators can be easily over come.

The lever angle remains the same but the generator angle does a 360 turn, so in effect the generator be come the rotor and the lever pivots the stators.

[jim_mich]

The lever angle remains the same but the generator angle does a 360 turn, so in effect the generator be come the rotor and the lever pivots the stators.

Yes, that is correct.

If you use a gearing system to drive eight generators the force loss can only be replace by the input drive thus 9 in, 8 out. this is how people are seeing my design and not the above.

No. With your wheel the speed of the motor is the same as the speed of each of the 8 generators, thus you have a 1:1 gearing system. You have 1 motor driving 8 generators, thus a 1:8 power ratio. The one motor must drive 8 generators thus it must be 8 times as big.

It takes 25 kg of force to pull the weight ring of the push over wheel, how much do you think it would take to pull the weighted ring of the push over wheel at one of the levers cogs? the point being that the resistance of the generators can be easily over come.

You do not understand what you are seeing! The force that you are measuring with your spring type scale is the rotational inertial resistance plus start-up friction. When you had the weights removed then you saw about 8 kg of rotational inertial resistance plus friction.

Every time a wheel is set into motion there are two forces that come into play. There is the initial inertial force plus friction needed to accelerate the wheel up to whatever speed. And there is the sustaining force needed to keep the wheel moving against friction. If weights are lifted then this is an additional force. Using a spring scale simply measures the start up forces needed to set your heavy wheel into motion. Once in motion friction and any load slow it down.

You will get the same results if you were to put eight sprockets on a long extended motor shaft and chain each sprocket to a generator each with its own sprocket.

I'll not discuss this idea anymore, as it only wastes my time. I took the time to look at the video and time to understand it and time to try to explain why it will not work. If you refuse to learn physics and mechanics and insist that things work differently than they actually do, then I'll not argue the point.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim Mich,

Thank you for taking the time to research and post here, and thank you for your input, I will start to look at the many different option I can play with in this design as I believe there is a gain to be found here.

Yours thankfully, Trevor

[triplock]

Greendoor,

Do you not see how the style of constructive post, such as Jim-Mich's, is a lot better than yours.

Arguing a point and being rude are quite different mate. By the way, I agree with what you said to trevor, but not in the manner in which it was said.

kind regards,

Chris

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

I claim the experiment shows that eight lever pivots on the out side of the wheel is showing a gravity operated leverage force of between 11 to 12 kg I claim that it takes less than that to turn the wheel from 5.5cm off the wheels centre this is a lot less once set in motion, so I see a 1 to 8 ratio, wherein one turn of the centre wheel equals one turn on each of the eight pivots.

Does anybody here disagree with that statement?

One step at a time.

Regards Trevor

[Tarsier79]

gravity operated leverage force of between 11 to 12 kg

So what is the difference between your design, and having a 12KG pendulum hanging from each generator?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi K,

The pendulums hung straight down with no leverage work, they would unbalance the wheel when they are moved over by the generators resistance until they would apply enough leverage force to overcome that resistances, that was MK 1 I should of measured it instead I thought that is way to much outer balance, I thought of ways to design the shape of the levers and weights to overcome this. I even looked at a four pivot square with the top of the square have a centre shaft for the generator, and the bottom of the square being the weight, I did not build it though as I came up with the weight rings (MK 2 ), inside of which was a free running weighted carriage (MK 3), MK 4 is shown, MK 5 is drive the push over wheel. MK 6 is drive both wheels.

Edit, tidy up, and add MK 2,3,4,5,6. Add quote.

Regards Trevor

Another option is removing the two extra wheel and over weight the levers, playing with the levers designs to reduce the out of balance kick back from the generators, the list goes on.

[Tarsier79]

The pendulums hung straight down with no leverage work

Your levers are pushing down on the generator pivot just as much as the bike rim is pushing them up, otherwise they would fall.

You get Leverage acting on the generator points, when the back-torque attempts to push the levers against gravity, or against the rim, depending on rotation direction. With pendulums, you are pushing against gravity in both directions.

Where is the extra leverage work on your design.

K