The Dynamic Juggler

[rlortie]

Trevor,

I must agree with greendoor,

Government is the wrong place to seek funding for an unproven PM project. You need a proven runner before applying for grants or calling on promissory investors and entrepreneur investment.

To cry 'Wolf' before its in the hen house only leads to dismal failure and the image of scamming and fraud.

Arrache is set up as a philanthropic organization falling under the Federal and State categories as a 501(c)(3) organization. That is to say that all we spend is tax deductible and that we can except donations which the contributer can deduct from their taxes.

To date their has been some donations made not in cash but in submitters supplying their own materials, often at moderate shipping costs.

It is not in our best interest to attempt seeking funds, grants or tax incentives until we have something in hand worth shouting about

As greendoor states; - If you could make the simplest working model of ANY of your PM ideas, then the private sector as well as State and Federal governments will fund you. My own state of Oregon offers a very lucrative plan for research and investment into new Green Earth research.

As for your 'Dynamic Juggler, I and others through collaboration and builds have attempted similar designs only to find failure. Even with an 84 pound flywheel geared in various ratios still proved that to reset a falling weighted lever took more energy than given on each fall.

I am not saying that it is impossible as I am sure all avenues have not been objectively covered. Based on my own experience I do not believe it is a design that Arrache should be investing in at this time.

It is a design more compatible to research once commercial R&D is established with earned income from a commercial product.

IMO opinion you need to take greendoor's advise:

1b - reduce the idea to it's simplest form
1c - build a simple, cheap experiment that proves the idea produces overunity.

Forget attempting to build and or design things based on the size of the Falkirk Wheel. Keep in mind that if your patent is refused and you wish to appeal the findings, you will need a model the size you can sit upon their desk, so why not start there.

Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi, Triplock,

I invented the multi levers driving hydraulic motors and new it was a runner! so I quit my job hired a work unit hired a patent agent and was set, what I did not know was there is no interest in my device, people do not want free energy at any price! so I spent three year looking for a better device, I also have spent a lot of time over 35 years so when you add all the hours I put in its more like £500,000!

If you could only see all of the sinarios I have built and look at you will see on my web site you are at the top of the list. As a lot of my stuff is based on hydraulics do not expect to see them in a shop near you for a while!

The best thing I have done is to stop wasting time chasing funding, as I now look at cheep ways to build.

Hello Trevor,

Hope your well.

I've just gone over your website again, and on face value, everything is there to get excited about.

The one thing that nags me though is the fact that, even after investing over £300K in your concepts, not once have you produced even a basic pm machine.

I just don't get it. There is a definate mis match between what you suggest and what you've achieved. Saying that, I do admire your single minded determination to do whatever it takes. Unfortunately, I think that you're coming to realise that you've gambled away to much, such is the addiction of this search.

Best wishes,

Triplock

My X say there no point me winning the lotto as I would only build bigger wheels! Regards Trevor

Edit, spelling, plus this, its not a gamble if your on the winner! I will wait at the post though just to make shore!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Ralph,

Thanks Ralph for looking at it, I will build it when I get the time, I still think its a runner though! I do not cry Wolf so much these day as I have tamed the beast! still have to watch your finger though!

Trevor,

I must agree with greendoor,

Government is the wrong place to seek funding for an unproven PM project. You need a proven runner before applying for grants or calling on promissory investors and entrepreneur investment.

To cry 'Wolf' before its in the hen house only leads to dismal failure and the image of scamming and fraud.

Arrache is set up as a philanthropic organization falling under the Federal and State categories as a 501(c)(3) organization. That is to say that all we spend is tax deductible and that we can except donations which the contributer can deduct from their taxes.

To date their has been some donations made not in cash but in submitters supplying their own materials, often at moderate shipping costs.

It is not in our best interest to attempt seeking funds, grants or tax incentives until we have something in hand worth shouting about

As greendoor states; - If you could make the simplest working model of ANY of your PM ideas, then the private sector as well as State and Federal governments will fund you. My own state of Oregon offers a very lucrative plan for research and investment into new Green Earth research.

As for your 'Dynamic Juggler, I and others through collaboration and builds have attempted similar designs only to find failure. Even with an 84 pound flywheel geared in various ratios still proved that to reset a falling weighted lever took more energy than given on each fall.

I am not saying that it is impossible as I am sure all avenues have not been objectively covered. Based on my own experience I do not believe it is a design that Arrache should be investing in at this time.

It is a design more compatible to research once commercial R&D is established with earned income from a commercial product.

IMO opinion you need to take greendoor's advise:

1b - reduce the idea to it's simplest form
1c - build a simple, cheap experiment that proves the idea produces overunity.

Forget attempting to build and or design things based on the size of the Falkirk Wheel. Keep in mind that if your patent is refused and you wish to appeal the findings, you will need a model the size you can sit upon their desk, so why not start there.

Ralph

Regards and thanks, Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Greedoor,

Thank for your advice I could of done with it 7 years ago!

I do not look for funding any more as it is a total waste of time! I do look at building small now, thus the ratchet lever design that is in my price range, I have six good build waiting but no where to build only outside, thus I should be able to start building again now as we had a bad winter here!

Trevor - a government is the wrong place to seek funding for a PM project. They are deeply in the pockets of the established power structures, particularly energy companies. They also have the power to hurt you the most.

Look - if you could make the simplest working model of ANY of your PM ideas, then the private sector will fund you. It's that simple - although chances are good that rampant greed on the part of some weak human being will cause your premature demise.

I've studied your logic, as far as I can follow, and the pattern seems to take three steps:
1 - An idea for overunity, based on any one of the old chestnuts (bouyancy, magnetism, gravity, leverage, whatever)
2 - Devise the most expensive, elaborate combination of equipment that would maximise whatever effect you hope to get out of this,
3 - Complain that people aren't rushing to fund this scheme.

If you could insert another couple of steps you life would be much easier:
1b - reduce the idea to it's simplest form
1c - build a simple, cheap experiment that proves the idea produces overunity

For example - if you were the first person to invent the electric motor, you don't have to ask for millions of research dollars. You can demonstrate the principle of an electric motor with a magnet, a cork, a needle, some copper wire and a battery. You can show that you can make the cork spin on the needle axle with a coil of wire around the cork and energise it with a battery. Imagine that the electric motor had never been seen before, and you showed up with a cork spinning around under battery power - the funding would soon appear...

This is the holy grail of PM of any kind - a simple, replicable experiment that opens the door.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

I must correct you on one point though, I do not look for over unity only a larger input from gravity, there is a big difference, over unity is impossible!

Edit, I always look at the top end first because if it can not make a good energy return it goes to the end of my list of builds! I am (was) looking for the answer to the energy problem first! the Dynamic Juggler does not scale up but it will have a good domestic use! so why have it at the end of the list of builds when Ralph showed some interest!

I think it may interest you to know that I test the principles first, apart from the Atwood design, but I did tell the readers how to test it, I have no interest in that design it made the bin and not my to do list, it was just to prove it could be built! as for my hydraulic designs that's what makes them work so how do you get around that, there lever systems have been modeled and shows a good balance and will work as predicted! just cannot afford the hydraulics, so if you cannot afford to build it why not think big! Plus small scale hydraulic has a higher friction ratio, so I chose known hydraulic motors so you have the flow rate and torque charts!

Every buoyancy device I have built has been tested under water! every fluid weight reservoir has been test and the forces noted I have done the R&D small scale! so you are left with what I think will work! You under estimate the work I have done! I hope this is of help to you and your understanding of me!

Regards Trevor

[AB Hammer]

Greetings Trevor

I just got home a little while ago from my work. I see Ralph already found it.

Alan

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Alan,

thanks! I at least Know what Arrache is about now! I thought you had a Government connection!

Thanks Alan, regards Trevor

Edit, spelling!

[rlortie]

Trever,

'Arrache' does have government connections as well as an inside tracks to specific grant foundations.

Simply put; I refuse to seek financial assistance on anything not proven and verified first. I do not want 'Arrache' to have an image compatible to those seeking funds for non-working and or no-proven devices.

Ralph

[greendoor]

Trevor - you are coming across as somebody who is unreasonable and somebody that any respectable business person would run a mile from. Sometimes the kindest thing somebody can do for another person is to slap them across the face and "wake up!" - you are fooling yourself and you are hurting yourself and those close to you. (Why does the comment about an "X" not surprise me ... ).

You have obviously invested a lot of time, money and emotion in this subject. I fear that your real problems are more emotional than technical or financial. For example - you say ridiculous things such as "people do not want free energy at any price! ". That is egotistical grandstanding, and denying the real problem: your failure to correctly validate your assertions.

Word, words, words. But at the end of it - all you to show for it some wild ideas that remain UNPROVEN. Many school kids have a better understanding of physics than you display, and they would not believe your wild ideas. Why should rational business men believe you?

I don't know if you are capable of distancing your emotions at this stage. Maybe better to walk away if you can. Otherwise - be prepared to eat a lot of humble pie, admit that you are deceiving yourself and attempting to deceive other people, and start testing some of your claims.

All it will take is one REAL, PROVEN result and the world will listen to you. At the moment, you are just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

This is coming from a fellow nutcase who believes that gravity powered PM is possible. I'm as guilty of mouthing off excessively - but I never claim to have a working device. I'm excited about some theories - one in particular - but i'm not crazy enough to make claims I can't back up.

As far as the word "overunity" - you ARE presenting free-energy schemes that allegedly output more energy than is required to be input. That is the defininition of "overunity". I think you are confusing 'overunity' with '>100% efficiency', which of course is impossible. Although this is pretty much semantics. If COE is found to be faulty, then perhaps the very concept of efficiency comes up for grabs. But at this point, the general population think it's all folly anyway.

If you prefer - we could use the term used for Heat Pumps: Co-efficient of Performance, and talk about a COP >1. It's just easier to say 'overunity' or 'PM' to use the naughty "P" word.

Words, words, words. Just show us anything that works!

You say that you have tested buoyancy experiments - but I am very confident that you have not displayed the ability to raise water higher than it falls. Anyone can show a strong buoyant force - that's child's play. But that force comes from the surrounding water seeking to fall down. And the water was raised - probably with your own muscle power in the experiments you mention.

If you believe you make water flow uphill, then the world will give you all the attention you seek. But you would need to demonstrate you can do this. You can make basic hydraulic systems with plastic bags, drinking straws and some duck tape. Basic principles are what is needed - and it doesn't matter how small or weak the end result is - as long as it is positive.

But I suspect your driving need is more of an emotional crutch - a need to blame others for your failures. In which case don't expect much sympathy. Snap out of it. Admit you ballsed up, and move on.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Greendoor,

the only problem I have is explaining to people who do not no the difference between over unity and gravity input! do you think that hydro power is over unity?

You do not seem to understand Hydraulics, yet you chose to lecher me!

You did not understand ratchet gearing systems, yet you chose to lecher me!

You do not understand that some things in life are worth a sacrifice!

You do not understand that I love me life and enjoy it so much I have been shown so many wonderful things, I came into this world with nothing and may leave with nothing but while I was here I gave it my every thing!

You do not understand that my X is my present!

Who is the person you wrote about in the above post, because its not me!

You would make a good politician with your smear campaign, and complete miss understanding!

I understand that you need a slap or two and should start with a book about Hydraulics then you can come back and apologize!

Practice what you preach! But better still understand what you preach!

Regards Trevor

Edit, spelling

Edit, the proof you require should have been posted on this forum weeks ago but because you lied on one of my drawing I wrote on the new drawing to prevent that this time! But now the drawings are over 250 kb and are to big to be posted, thus I now have to redo them so thanks for that!

I did not like your above post! Please do not try to pitty the fool me again! As I am nobody’s fool just genuine! I no when people are messing with me so stop it!

[greendoor]

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.

[triplock]

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

[nicbordeaux]

Trevor, if you have file size problems with sketches, images or whatnot, have you tried this if you are running windows ? You have a programme (probably under "accessories, not sure o' the English lingo versionof windows) called paint. Make a copy of your image, put on desktop? Right click "open with" will appear, select paint. Then just select the part of image you want to shown under properties you have "size of image". Into top box enter 800, the bottom number will self adjust. Then "record under", specify (choose) desktop, choose jpeg as format, hey presto. Any trouble, drop me a line, or somebody else here will help.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ralph,

sorry to waste your time but you did show a interest first, I will not trouble you again!

Regards Trevor

Trever,

'Arrache' does have government connections as well as an inside tracks to specific grant foundations.

Simply put; I refuse to seek financial assistance on anything not proven and verified first. I do not want 'Arrache' to have an image compatible to those seeking funds for non-working and or no-proven devices.

Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Triplock, Greendoor,

shall we come back to this when I post the Hydraulic design? as I think you will find I do not need a wake up call! it is based on facts and known Hydraulic systems, known mechanical principles, and basic Physics, the Energy Laws remain intact, there is no over unity in the system, and high friction is countered with high force! there is no wild claims and it can be back with experiments!

Regards Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Nicbordeaux,

Thanks for that I will try it next time, I think if I remove the wording it will reduce the kb.

Cheers Trevor

Trevor, if you have file size problems with sketches, images or whatnot, have you tried this if you are running windows ? You have a programme (probably under "accessories, not sure o' the English lingo versionof windows) called paint. Make a copy of your image, put on desktop? Right click "open with" will appear, select paint. Then just select the part of image you want to shown under properties you have "size of image". Into top box enter 800, the bottom number will self adjust. Then "record under", specify (choose) desktop, choose jpeg as format, hey presto. Any trouble, drop me a line, or somebody else here will help.