The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply

do you beleive that the Multi Lever Phenomenon is genuine

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi all, my name is Trevor Lyn Whatford I discovered the Multi Lever Phenomenon when building a Out of Balance wheel, it is very simple! if you have 20 lever on one side of a wheel and 20 levers on the other side then the wheel is almost balanced, that is it would take very little input power to rotate it! the levers on both sides of the wheel fall and there leverage (kinetic energy from gravity) is collected in hydraulic pistons to be used to drive a hydraulic motor to rotate the wheel! the Patent Office say's that the energy taken from a falling lever is equal to the energy required to lift that lever back to a working position! this is not correct in the case of the multi lever phenomenon as the levers fall to there raised position and are not lifted directly but when the whole wheel is rotated 180 degrees the levers are back in the raised position again it is simple geometry no levers are lifted directly just rotate them 180 degrees and there back to there raised position, but because the wheel is in a counterbalance state it take less energy to rotate than the kinetic energy gained by the falling levers.

You guy's now that the biggest problem faced in the search for gravity motors is the geometry problem? the Multi Lever Phenomenon uses geometry and counterbalance to its best advantage, it also has true weight falling x leverage on both sides of the wheel wherein just one weighted lever falling may create more kinetic energy than a out of balance wheel of the same size, the only down side is a very poor RPM as the levers need time to fall and centrifugal forces would kill the leverage if the RPM is to high! for more info go to page 3 on my web site www.real-free-energy.co.uk Thanks for taking the time to read this.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

Hi Trevor - thanks for sharing your ideas. I voted Yes - I think you could be on to something. I admire your dedication (selling your house was a bold decision). I wish you every success. However - I think you have a basic problem in presenting your ideas to the world. The academic viewpoint is a case of extreme tunnel-vision, and I believe that most people who have been fully indoctrinated would dismiss your work without trying to understand what you are presenting.

It seems to me that you don't have a strong academic background in physics & maths, and that will be a problem. It's a tough crowd to please (and even Bessler wasn't believed by all the academics of his day, although they were far less indoctrinated and more open to the possibility of PM).

I am of the opinion that there are some fatal errors in some applications of Energy theory and the so-called Laws of Thermodynamics, which are used to confuse the real laws of Kinetics. I happen to believe that there is sufficient room in Newtonian kinetics to allow for the Force of gravity to power a spinning wheel. (Very few people, even frequenters of this forum, share this belief).

Personally I believe that:

A - Bessler succeeded and was not a fraud - there is sufficient historical proof, and
B - there is sufficient mathematical proof (to my satisfaction) that gravity can power a wheel (which I believe is the same proof that Gravesande understood after viewing Bessler's wheel)

So I find it easy to believe that possibly you may have a design that can work. It's very similar to some ideas I pursued a couple of years ago and gave up - but this has forced me to review these ideas in light of what I now believe.
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

My previous idea was along the lines of using weights on single-spoke flywheels. Obviously, it's very easy for the weight to fall from 12:00 to 6:00, but very hard to push the weight back up from 6:00 to 12:00 again. I considered the idea of connecting pairs of these, 180 degrees out of phase, via gears or chains etc. This balances them, so that when one mass is rising, the opposing pair is falling and vice versa. That means the force of gravity is nulled, and we can easily rotate the pairs of single-spoke-flywheels (SSF) for simply the energy cost of overcoming inertia. The energy cost of overcoming gravity is nulled out.

OK - mount a balanced pair of these SSF on a balancing see-saw arrangement, and then we can change the Centre of Gravity of the see-saw for this low energy cost. Having overbalanced the COG, the see-saw must fall. Then we can change the COG again (once again for just the energy cost of rotating the SSF).

Why I dropped this idea? Because it became apparant that when the see-saw fell, it removed a large amount of angular movement from the SSF. The exact number of radians or degrees of travel have to be compensated for when rotating the SSF back the other way in order to overbalance it. I figured the energy output could not exceed the energy input.

However .... you have raised the possibility of greatly extending this idea ... literally 'multiple levers' ....

What if we made a circular flywheel that consisted of a large number of SSF mounted in a balanced array.
Possibly all interconnected via hydraulics and hydraulic stepper motors.
While half of the SSF units are 'rising' the other half are 'falling', therefore we can reset the COG of this array without having to overcome the force of gravity...
However, having reset the COG, the force of gravity then must force the wheel to rotate, providing useful power ...

At first glance, this appears to negate the problems I struck ....

My question is whether the Energy obtained from the constantly 'falling' wheel is greater or less than the energy required to constantly Reset all the SSF. In other words - is the energy cost of overcoming the Inertia of the weights less than the energy obtained from the fall of the weights ....

Food for thought ...
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

... and having thought about it, my concerns are:

The basic flaw is that when the wheel rotates, the SSF (or 'levers' as I believe you call them) also rotate and lose or gain the same number of degrees that the wheel rotates through. Which translates into Height. Which means that the available Height on the falling side is lessened, and the Height that the weight must be raised is also increased.

Basically - if it doesn't work for one pair of SSF, why should a whole bunch of them fare any better?

I am back to considering that this is merely an over-complicated balancing act that ultimately all balances out to zero.

However - if there is any energy to be gained at all, I think it comes back to the principle of allowing an overbalanced wheel to Accelerate, building up to maximum Momentum over a relatively long period of Time. And then grabbing all that momentum, transfering it to the small over-balancing mass so that it gains high velocity with which to quickly reset itself.

If that turns out to be the source of energy, there should be simpler ways to do it.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi greendoor,

for the best option see the Falkirk Wheel scenario one on my web site www.real-free-energy.co.uk and you will see that as a Hydraulic Pump the loop can be closed in less than one turn of the wheel
Last edited by Trevor Lyn Whatford on Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi greendoor,

thank you for your response,

there are two weights on a wheel containing levers one is the weights on the lever pivot this weight is what I call out of balance weight this is what is rotated Newtons law the weight on one side of the wheel would be equal and opposite to the weight on the other side thus the true weight on the wheel is not realised when rotating that wheel.

Then you have the weights on the levers and the levers this is true weight falling so the 20 levers falling kinetic energy is collected in a hydraulic piston, the levers will not fall until the piston pressure release valve has reached it pressure so the hydraulic fluid then has good pressure to do work and the levers can be calibrated when to fall. each lever has two pistons so it can operate a piston on both sides so 20 lever fall twice per 1 rotation so that's 40 levers with true weight falling per one rotation.

Draw a pair of levers at there fallen position then rotate the page 180 degrees then you can see that they fell but are now rased to a falling position with now direct lifting!

I know you maybe concerned at the geometry problem so look at having the levers mounted transverse mounted on say a fair ground Big Wheel this is the best option as the lever do not fall into and away from the axis
and can keep the same distance away from the axis, this is even better for keeping the wheel in a counterbalanced state.

A out of balance wheel would be fighting the weights on the opposite side,
but the levers falling energy on one side of the wheel and the levers falling energy on the other side of the wheel are added together to drive the same motor that drives the wheel in my system!
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
AB Hammer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3728
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:46 am
Location: La.
Contact:

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by AB Hammer »

Trevor

I haven't talked to yo for a long time. Welcome to the forum.
"Our education can be the limitation to our imagination, and our dreams"

So With out a dream, there is no vision.

Old and future wheel videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/ABthehammer/videos

Alan
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Alan,

I imagen being educated and that's my dream.

I have found that nobody could educate me in the ways of a working gravity wheel so I had to teach my self! so dream on.

As you can see I am light hearted even though its a big one!
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

Trevor - to turn your idea into a working device, I think you need to be able to communicate the working principle more clearly. I'm open to the possibility it might work, but I am failing to understand the principle.

Unfortunately, words such as Energy are highly emotive and lock educated people into thought patterns that are hopelessly bound to the concept that Perpetual Motion is Impossible.

When we talk about extracting energy from falling weights, then obviously we have to raise those weights back up again - otherwise the motion is short-lived. Even if we are using a very small height of fall to compress and pressurise a fluid - a fall is a fall is a fall.

Most of us here have explored every avenue of trying to get more energy out of a falling weight than we need to lift it back up again. I'm not seeing that you are offering a new principle that hasn't already been tried - but that is perhaps because you haven't been able to explain it clearly enough. And yet - if you strongly believe you have a valid working principle, why haven't you been able to build a working model?

Can you reduce this idea to the very simplest machine to prove the principle? You will quickly learn that it is EXTREMELY difficult to communicate technical ideas, especially to educated people who are rigidly conditioned with specific words and thought patterns. A picture is definately worth a thousand words - but even pictures can be misunderstood.

Please try ... you won't find a more receptive audience that you will find in this forum. If you can't get through to some of us, I doubt you can get through to anyone, at least without a working model.
JuBragg
Dabbler
Dabbler
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:43 am
Location: Australia

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by JuBragg »

Hi Trevor,
I take it that you have a working model, congratulations.
I have built several wheels using the kinetic energy principle and the pull on one side was 30% more than the other, unfortunately I didn't balance the top and bottom halves, the bottom half requiring more than the 30% to overcome gravity!

If increasing the number of levers resolves this issue I am delighted, back to the drawing board, at least I have the wheels already built.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi all,

The multi lever phenomenon is just basic mechanics, rotating a wheel in a counterbalance state which reset the levers to a falling position on its opposite side to the side where it fell originally, just by rotating the wheel 180 degrees this is the most economical way of raising a lever back to it raised position!

The wheel require multi lever to keep it in a counterbalance state plus the more lever you have the more kinetic energy is produced (more output to input ratio) the lever fall on one side and are reset by geometry when rotated to the other side (180 degrees), using less energy to rotate the near balanced wheel than the kinetic energy gained by all the falling levers.

By rotating a wheel containing multi lever starts a cascade of falling lever on both sides of the wheel of the wheel!

The point of this poll was to see if people could understand the multi lever phenomenon as set out in the description of it on my web site www.real-free-energy.co.uk it seem to me I need to add a lot more drawing and to better describe the multi lever phenomenon as it is real and deserves better clarity and understanding, I thank you all for your help I will now improve my web site so you can all understand it, as it is one of the answer to what you all seek!

If you can not wait, then draw 20 lever in there relevant position then rotate the drawing 180 degree, then count how many lever would have fell in half a rotation.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi jubragg,

so you found the wheel to be in a near balanced state did you, that's good,
but when you rotated the wheel did you tap the kinetic energy of the all the falling levers or did you just waste it all?

Next time you build try to tap all that wasted energy that you are creating but not using, some builder just waste there energy building without seeing, where I try to use all of my energy when building that's the differents.

30% that's a lot you are not using many lever are you? I get that down to 03% using 32 lever and 64 lever action per rotation, that's maybe why I discovered the Multi lever Phenomenon and you did not.

A big thank you jubragg, as this comparison is a good way to prove the multi lever phenoenon!
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by greendoor »

This is the basic Multi Lever device? The problem I see with this is that there are the same number of weights on the falling side as there are on the rising side. Since they are all locked to the axle via gears, they are forced to rotate together at the same speed. This would appear to be a guaranteed lock-up situation. I expect this would function as a solid flywheel with perhaps a small out-of-balance that would make it keel in one position.

Can you please explain this better if I have misunderstood.
Attachments
new pa5.gif
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by rlortie »

Hang in there Trevor,

Your presentation has received 6 viable responses and I can easily pull as many quotes out of them proving that the few to respond do not understand your multi-lever concept.

They have not made the connection between your design and that of Bob K. You remember him as the guy using one dual action pneumatic cylinder to augment what was referred to as 'Centrifugal Swing'. I am quite sure that Charlie, Ron and Larry @ over-unity and Jon of this forum remember it well.

Those of you who are having trouble grasping this concept should take a long hard look at MT 24 & 25. Maybe then you will understand that the lever fall on the descent is the same distance the levers are falling on the ascent. The distance each lever travels in reference to the wheel is the same rising or falling. Travel time is the same although it will not appear as such to the outside viewer.

Trevor, if and when I get some on-going obstacles cleared from my path I fully intend to pickup up on this where I faded out on you. It has taken me considerable time to find the required ingredients for your proposal at a price I can afford and even then it will have to be built in increments.

Ralph
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

Post by greendoor »

Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:...it is very simple! if you have 20 lever on one side of a wheel and 20 levers on the other side then the wheel is almost balanced, that is it would take very little input power to rotate it! the levers on both sides of the wheel fall and there leverage (kinetic energy from gravity) is collected in hydraulic pistons to be used to drive a hydraulic motor to rotate the wheel! the Patent Office say's that the energy taken from a falling lever is equal to the energy required to lift that lever back to a working position! this is not correct in the case of the multi lever phenomenon as the levers fall to there raised position and are not lifted directly but when the whole wheel is rotated 180 degrees the levers are back in the raised position again it is simple geometry no levers are lifted directly just rotate them 180 degrees and there back to there raised position, but because the wheel is in a counterbalance state it take less energy to rotate than the kinetic energy gained by the falling levers.
It may be simple to you, but i'm as confused as hell. Your website doesn't clear anything up for me.

You say that rotating the wheel 180 degrees restores all the levers to their raised position. I can accept that. BUT - when the levers fell, their CoG also fell. When you rotate the wheel 180 degrees, you have to raise the CoG back up again. That requires energy input, and this is most likely to be as much as any gained during the fall.

Better explanations needed please.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
Post Reply