The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple

[murilo]

Whatford, thanks for your reply.
I'm afraid my comprehension troubles are getting worst. Sorry!
Of sure, I'm forced to accept for me that hard core idiot script.
For the other side, the same doubts affect to our member Michael...
Be advised, I'm not skeptical about MPs, FE and all these crackpot themes, since this is the ''impossible'' arena I fight for some years.
I'm of sure, and absolutely, really skeptical about people in general and I'm also absolutely skeptical about my own skills to cheat and convince even good people.
This makes me a self-skeptical and not so much self-confident as normal persons.
Take care! Muliro

[greendoor]

rlortie - sorry to have offended you. You are right: I am pessimistic about human nature, especially when money and secrecy are involved.

I was reacting to your own words - which were directed at me: "I could enlighten greendoor by spilling what I know of your design and the research I already have invested in it."

That statement implies three things to me:

A - that you have 'invested' in this design and are seeking a return on that investment (the profit motive)
B - that you believe that Trevor's idea and your idea are one and the same (otherwise how could you have 'already invested in it' if it wasn't the same idea)
C - you are wanting to keep the key idea secret ...

"I will not do so as I consider it confidential material shared by you and I via private communication. I feel that I have already said more than I should have.

Do you hold a current provisional patent on this or are you 'free sourcing' the full contents? Please respond with your motives as it will reflect on 'Arrache' investments.
"

Forgive me if I have jumped to the wrong conclusions - but what conclusions should I have jumped to, given what you wrote?

You say that your business is non-profit, and that you don't wish to patent anything, which is fair enough. But then you suggest that we should perhaps pay the running costs of your workshop ...

Your workshops are no doubt set up and funded as commercially run operations. It's not reasonable to suggest that this incidental hobby/experimental sideline should fund these separate business entities.

Why not just say it like it really is: you would like to make some money out of a working gravity wheel as much as the next man?

I agree, that if people want to give away ideas that they can't build themselves, that's their choice. If you want to keep things secret, so you can exploit the ideas financially - that's your choice. I have no issues with the profit motive.

Frankly - if you succeeded and marketed a commercial device that delivered useable power, i'd be very happy to buy one from you.

My interest is more academic - if I was driven to make money, there are far better opportunities than trying to build a PM wheel. I also happen to believe the many accounts of free-energy inventors getting harrassed or killed if they start to market a working device. And I also happen to believe that the military keep tabs on free-energy inventors, in case they get lucky and start to threaten the balance of power.

I'm just not in a position to care too deeply about financial arrangements involving PM stuff, because I don't think the small guys can win this war. Which is why I would rather that good ideas were freely shared.

Sorry for any offence - I guess your position just took me by surprise. I'd previously just thought that you were a total sceptic. I'm encouraged that you still think there is a real possibility that a gravity powered device could ever work ...

Thanks.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ED Aficionado and Michael,

I take it you voted No then?

Please take up the prize offer but you will need about 6 million pounds to build all of my designs, I trust you both have the money to put where your mouths are? As I would get my designs built for free! And if I am wrong then I would own the devices so I could weigh them in as scrap and the gold weights that I would use would more than pay for your $20,000 and still have change, Yes when you see a prize on offer always read the terms and conditions.

There are some people out there that offer prizes that would rule out gravity wheels as the weight and size could not be scaled down to the KW and size of the prize terms and conditions! So why don’t you go pick on them? The point made on my web site is anybody can offer a prize and as you have now discovered they are worthless so well done guy’s you are learning from me already!

Just a minute you are not some of them hard core free energy saboteurs are you? I hope not I hope you are the good type of sceptic like me! or did you lose it before you read that part?

I sold everything I own to back up my belief in free energy have you two shown the same commitment? so do not moralize the patent route to me As you have not fought it through. The governments will Tax it, a percentage of will go on arms and probably wars! But with my 2.5% I can help the casualties, build hospitals, and orphanages and lot of other things, and yes I would spend a lot on me and my needs.

Did you guy’s know that in the UK it is free to apply for a Patent and that if you do not go to the next stage your application can stop anybody else from getting one! Also you get a copy right date! There guy’s you learnt some more!

Thank for this waste of time guy’s now back to the thread.

I loved the MT drawing is there a manuscript that go with it? As I would love to read it and so would the forum you could learn a lot from this MT drawing and a bit of imagination!

Now do you guy’s have any mechanical question I can help you with or can I now answer one of greendoors ?

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Trevor...

Now do you guy’s have any mechanical question I can help you with or can I now answer one of greendoors ?

I'd like to take a shot at this offer. I admit that I may not be the best at descriptive language, so feel free to say so when it isn't making sense. I admit to just using simulation software to do testing and the such and only use a couple of "mechano" sets to actually build anything. I have not tried any kind of a whole wheel concept in a long time because I think that after 5 years on this site with as much literature as I can find and afford, I really understand why most basic concepts fail.

Here's a bit of the quandry I find myself in with this research lately. Most of the devices that we use to manipulate the weight distribution and maintain an OOB condition for the wheel consist of static values....springs, latches, cords or ropes....simply do not seem to have the ability to adjust to the dynamics of the acceleration process. We pretty much already know that as this acceleration increases that the reaction forces created are not going to be proprtional with our static devices.

Have you overcome this aspect and if so, how in the heck did you do it?


Steve

[Ed]

I take it you voted No then?

No Trevor, I didn't vote at all. As I said, Bessler has done some work with this kind of idea, but I'm not convinced about the 'genuineness' of your designs. You say Michael and I are wasting time, but in this (so far) three page thread the only images are from greendoor (posting your image) and myself.

You titled this thread "The Multi Lever Phenomenon is simple" along with a poll asking "do you beleive that the Multi Lever Phenomenon is genuine", so you are putting yourself out there wanting people to comment on this. You just have to realize some people are not going to understand a load of verbiage without clearly illustrated diagrams.

Ralph being an 'insider' on this design doesn't make it any clearer for those who don't understand by posting the following:

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.

Please do pull Ralph, then there would be some more points for discussion. Trevor why don't you post something more illustrative of your designs, instead of relying on greendoor to do it for you? Even lacking PC skills, you should be able to manage copying and pasting text from your website, right? Besides, how do you know greendoor will copy the correct bits for you from the 'page 3' of your website, especially when you write things like the following:

This design, is not as good as the Hydraulic designs as it only uses the levers leverage on one side, whereas the Hydraulic designs use the levers on both sides, but there is no way I can afford Hydraulics so I design a cheap ratchet design, as shown,

Also there is an inventive feature not shown as I am working on the spinoffs.

Out of curiosity, can you explain why the below quote seems contradictory. On the one hand you say patents in the UK are free to apply for, but you are getting taxed 2.5% from the government for some reason. Does this mean you have payed to take a patent 'all the way'? If so, can you supply the patent No.?

The governments will Tax it, a percentage of will go on arms and probably wars! But with my 2.5% I can help the casualties, build hospitals, and orphanages and lot of other things, and yes I would spend a lot on me and my needs.

Did you guy’s know that in the UK it is free to apply for a Patent and that if you do not go to the next stage your application can stop anybody else from getting one! Also you get a copy right date! There guy’s you learnt some more!

I loved the MT drawing is there a manuscript that go with it? As I would love to read it and so would the forum you could learn a lot from this MT drawing and a bit of imagination!

The MT stuff is here http://besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Portal:MT The one I posted was #114, and I have learned a lot from them all. I suspect you could too.


-Ed Aficionado

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi green door,

You said about the CoG that is the centre of Gravity is it? well I assume that is what it is, you are looking at the centre of gravity of each lever when you should look at the centre of gravity of the wheel! Example there is 20 levers on one side of the wheel and 20 levers on the other side, all the lever are connected by the 40 pivots and that is where the weight is suspended off the wheel so where is the centre of gravity in relation to the wheel ? in the middle of the wheel ! That is the true weight of the wheels centre of gravity, now lets look at the levers centre of gravity this is false weight as the levers pivot at the rim of the wheel and the pull of there centre of gravity is driven into the wheel through the pivot connect so there is only a percentage of out of balance weight due to the lever positions which is reduced even more if the wheels diameter is increased this is why the out of balance wheel has been so hard to discover because of people thinking the false weight is true weight! When most of these attempts at the out of balance wheel wherein a near balanced state but not many people measured just how close to a true balance that was (so would not take much energy to rotate), lets now look at the input of the levers, when the levers fall that is true weight falling x the leverage ratio! There may be more kinetic energy gained from one falling lever than could be hoped for from an out of balance wheel but only if it is tapped! As the lever falls because the fulcrum pivot is the same as the lever pivot the leverage can be tapped with out losing weight of the pivot so the wheels centre of gravity has not altered! When the wheel is rotated it is a near true balance state so does not take much input energy to rotate and the levers true weights are in counterbalance state on there pivots irrespective of each levers centre of gravity although some lever systems will fair better than other and I think the transverse levers will be the best as the lever centre of gravity would always be over the rim so to speak.

I hope you can get your head around this as I have found out from this forum that I am no good at explaining my experiments, I now know I have to explain the Multi Lever Phenomenon right from the basics in a step by step format with drawings, so I thank this forum for that! as I have seen what is happening in my experiment I forget that you all have not done the same experiment!

I have been in direct contact with Ralph some time ago and I found him to be one of the most knowledgeable men on the subject of free energy, mechanics, and a lot more, also trust worthy and very professional, if you say some think in confidence to Ralph that is where it stays, our business is nobodies business!

Some time we could all do with a delay button on the submit as we could take time to think what we have said and is it what we mean.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi steve,

I have just posted some stuff for greendoor, if you have more question I would be glad to answer them for you when I get time as there are some complete time wasters on this thead

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ED Aficionado

I did think that the use of countbalance and leverage was simple! well it is to me because I need it to do work!

I am trying to answer the genuine peoples question so go away and waste your own time you are beyond help as you are just trying to P me off so go a way and just veiw this thread.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi murilo,

This is off topic! but I have just been working in brazil I loved it, I wish we could have meet as we both believe in free energy.

[rlortie]

Ed wrote; Edited for Brevity

Ralph being an 'insider' on this design doesn't make it any clearer for those who don't understand by posting the following:
rlortie wrote:

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.

Please do pull Ralph, then there would be some more points for discussion.

Ed, I did not at the time realize one important factor. I too now find myself guilty of blind ignorance. I was under the impression that the great debate was over Trevor's hydraulic version which IMO is a viable project for R&R. It is now obvious that I overlooked following quote.

This design, is not as good as the Hydraulic designs as it only uses the levers leverage on one side, whereas the Hydraulic designs use the levers on both sides, but there is no way I can afford Hydraulics so I design a cheap ratchet design, as shown,

This half gear concept, has me scratching my head. Having recently getting out of surgery, bringing the damn flu bug home, does not leave me in the best of cognizance to be making any opinions on this gear driven version. I will not make any more posts on this subject until I fully understand what is going on.

I am more intent on keeping this damn cough from ripping out the stitching in my chest.

Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

HI ED,

tax it! it being free energy! do you think they will not tax it? (They being the governments).

MT drawings, I had built a lot of them before I even knew they existed, so I learnt a lot well before you and if you have learnt so much about them why did you not discover the Multi Lever Phenomenon before me and why do you have trouble understanding it? I think it is because you have not learnt as much as you think you have! is that why you are on my case?

Here some thing you can help me with are the MT drawing showing Just Besslers designs or are they mostly his drawings of other peoples design, and if so which is which?

[Ed]

Am I to be given permission to post in this thread at your whim then?

The only trouble I am having understanding anything is how you've come to know when I've learnt something in relation to you, but anyway MT is made up of a mix of Bessler specific designs along with more conventional PM designs and the ratio is debatable, but even when he is showing designs from others, the reason for showing them is for his own.


@ Ralph

You do deserve R&R ;-) I hope you feel better soon!

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Steve,

the quick answer is yes, see below

your quote! We pretty much already know that as this acceleration increases that the reaction forces created are not going to be proprtional with our static devices.

Your quote! Have you overcome this aspect and if so, how in the heck did you do it?

I do not use out of balance, I use counterbalance levers! by rotating them starts a cascade of falling levers so I tap the leverage (kinetic energy) and send it to drive the wheel, the wheel ends up with more torque than it needs so it can do work as well.

The levers when falling operate Hydraulic pistons to tap there kinetic energys this then goes into accumulators and then it drives drives Hydraulic motors! this is a low RPMdevice that's about 1 to 8 RPM
the lever operated piston also act as dampers! the motor are variable speed just by regulating there input flow of Hydraulic fluid (flow rate) this keeps the speed in check! my device need to be primed first with one rotation to fill the Hydraulic accumulators then it self running with one turn in hand! when rotated the levers fall back and forth pumping the fluid back through the motors.

Go to my web site www.real-free-energy.co.uk page three there is more there!

[ovyyus]

...my device need to be primed first with one rotation to fill the Hydraulic acumulators then it self running with one turn in hand!

When you say "device" I guess you really mean 'design'? There's a world of difference between these two d words ;)

[nicbordeaux]

Ovyyus, I think "device" is the word, because you can't be so affirmative about a a "design" which hasn't been built.