No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

a. the intentional perversion of truth; b. an act of deceiving or misrepresenting

Moderator: scott

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

No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi All,
Take a look at this concept of a buoyancy wheel! plenty of leverage as the wheel is the main lever then there are sets of levers to close the reservoirs, in short it is a leverage advantage win device!

It was posted on a thread but It would be lost there so I gave it its own thread, this is a build that I want to do, but may not get time, see what you think, here it is then.

As posted more or less,
While you are about it why not try the maths on the self opening air filled reservoirs in my above post, say it is on a wheel 4m OD with the 20 reservoirs transverse mounted at the outer rim that hold 5 litres of air each when open, that is about 0.4 of a bar water pressure differential , + 0.2 bar greater air pressure to self open the reservoirs , so it will take 0.7 bar to close the reservoirs one at a time, now see how much torque force is gained by the 10 open reservoirs, and how much torque is required to close one reservoir! The above will drive a generator which will drive a small compressor, pneumatic pistons close and latch the reservoirs, and to help the efficiency when the pistons air is dumped it fills open cups at the bottom of the wheel, also the reservoirs are shaped like hydrofoils and are moveable! I also have a mechanical option, the open reservoirs are the source of the leverage in both designs, one side full, and the other empty so to speak! The mechanical option has a number of frame fixed wheels that compress the reservoirs closed at the top of the main wheel, thus all that one sided leverage to compress one reservoir about 5 to 10cm !

As posted more or less,
This design is better than I thought, because the reservoir are transverse mounted means they can be longer and slimmer, thus very little compression movement, thus levers can be added to the reservoirs to engage the frame mounted top reservoir closing wheels, there is also room to add more reservoirs, so 4 meter OD wheel can accommodate 50 reservoirs, 25 full, 24 empty, and one closing. What this means is now the design has the leverage torque of 25 air filled reservoirs x the 4 to 1 of the reservoir closing levers leverage = the value of a torque force of a 100 full reservoirs to close just one reservoir! The reservoir closing levers leverage would also be hydro foil in shape, and the leverage ratios can be played with. Hope you find this as interesting as I do.

I am going to build this if or when I get some time, I will start with a small scaled wheel with only two working reservoirs, I will put 24 bits of foam of the same shape and volume as the two working reservoirs on one side of the wheel, if the top reservoir closes and the bottom reservoir opens then I will know that it will work! this will save time and be good enough to prove the system, the odds look in my favour so its looking good. 5 litres of buoyancy lift per reservoir should work out to be about 25 x 5 x average of 1 meter of leverage away from the axle = 125 NM of force, and if I have the room for a 5 to 1 reservoir closing levers then that would be, 125 NM of force to close 1 litre of air against only a 0.7 bar pressure differential, so to me it looks very good indeed, note the above are just quick sums to see if it was worth a build, and I think it is worth a build!

I have compressed a 1.8 meter two 5 litre reservoirs joined at the middle test rig a long time ago, it took 65 kilos of force to close the top reservoir and open the bottom reservoir, that was 65 kilos of force direct, not times 1 meter leverage like the above NM Newton Meters so it is looking very good indeed. There is another advantage of increasing the air pressure and that is the volume of the reservoirs is not reduced by the lower water pressure!

Regards Trevor
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi all,
I have moved this thread to fraud! In my excitement I made a mistake with my calculations thus I humbly apologize to all members and guests, and thank Greendoor for his input that made me check my calculations, I hope you all understand how easy it is to get carried away with a idea!

I would like any more input on this subject to be posted on this fraud thread as it is the best place for this idea, it is a close call though, and I hope to post a drawing here with the correct calculations.

I hope you all understand and except my sincere apology.

Yours sincerely, Trevor Lyn Whatford
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi All,
For those who maybe interested this is where I made the mistake with the calculations, the compression force is at 12 o’clock and I took the compression force of the top reservoir as 65kilos x 4 meters as a torque position on the wheel, but it is not it is a load position, there for no matter where it is on a wheels outer rim it is applying a leverage force back to the axle so it should have been 65 kilos x 4 meters x 2 nm leverage back to the axle, a load force on a wheel is always in a optimum position when it is at the outer rim no matter where it is, but a weight or buoyancy force acting on a wheels input is only in a torque position measured by its distance away from the vertical line from the axle, a drive position at the outer rim is also in its optimum position no matter where it is located on the outer rim, this is why ramps and guided systems do not work to date, I thought I would let you all know where I messed up, sorry for this school boy error, stupid is what stupid does!!!

Thank you all for your patients, and I will try to be good in the future, but it will not be easy as I have a impulsive nature to keep under control!

With respect Trevor
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi all,

I have also dragged this statement to the fraud section to where it belong!

Buoyancy cannot offer free energy



This is not true and goes against some of my research and some of my experiments! Tidal locks and large floats attached to large levers, pivoting on a shore mounted pivot to operate a large hydraulic pistons can drive hydraulic motors and generators, thus free energy from buoyancy!

Regards Trevor
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Greendoor wrote,
Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:49 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please can we have this moved this to the fraud forum. These statements are wrong - certainly misguided if not actually intentional deceit.
Trevor - this has been your style all along, and it's an embarassing display of delusional exhibitionism. You give this forum a worse reputation than it deserves.

Buoyancy cannot offer free energy. The lifting force of buoyancy is obtained at the cost of matter (the liquid) falling down around a lighter density object. For every kilogram of mass that gets lifted, a kilogram of mass falls down. So you simply cannot get any more energy out of it than what you ultimately have to put back into to reset. You can fool yourself if you like by playing around with volume and pressure etc, but nothing detracts from the fact that for every kilogram that rises, a kilogram falls. Confuse yourself all you like with volume or pressure or force or whatever you fancy, but mass is mass is mass. What goes up must come down.

Leverage doesn't solve anything either - you simply trade force for distance, so if you raise your mass higher it will also fall lower.

Before you make bold misleading statements in a public forum like this, you need to get your facts correct. Jumping to a confusion and then adding some random numbers to prove your point doesn't help anybody, least of all yourself.

Just sayin' ...


Hi Greendoor,
to save this forum anymore embarrassment I will no longer post anything that will contravene known physics even though I do not agree with some aspects of known physics.

I will however embarrass my self on my own site where I can delude my self that levers can compress reservoirs at a lower out of balance, even with the drop of height of the falling weighted levers on both sides of the wheel, being smaller than the total imbalance of a one sided lift of buoyancy at a larger distance from the axle than that of the falling levers negative imbalance.

I will not trouble you and the members with this again I promise! You believe what you want on this subject and I will believe what want! there is no way it would be built and if it was built it would not be cost effective, so we are arguing about nothing. Visitors to my site will also take it or leave it, if it makes them ask a question then it can only be good not to have a total closed mind on known physics! I am not trying to brainwash anyone quite the opposite.

Edit, I think our main differences is, you see it as a physics problem, and I see it as a mechanical problem!

With respect, Trevor Lyn Whatford
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Just a thought!
The above buoyancy wheel is in the fraud topic anyway, so I can have a little play with it, the main problem being the compression wheel acting like a brake, but if the compression wheel was a driven balanced heavy roller then it would not act like a brake, and would be pushing the buoyancy wheel and compressing the levers at the same time via the rubber lever wheels and rubber outer rim of the compression roller. I wonder how much input would be needed to drive the roller ( loss in motive force while compressing the levers and reservoir) I should think it would not save the above design but should make it more efficient, and it would be more efficient than running the system with a compressor, even with the compressed air dumped cupped and recycled as buoyancy lift at the bottom of the wheel. Just thinking out loud and filling the tool box!
Regards, Trevor
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Honza, Art,

Honza, what was the Gear Box ratio on top of the device.

Art, there generator looks way to small to be a 5kw generator.

Here was my sleep less nights

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5634

I think if I used pneumatic pistons to close the reservoirs I could MAYBE of made it work because of all the torque ( a lot more than shown on the Video device) that could drive a compressor and generator it would take a lot less air but at higher pressure.

I have long said that using modern technology MT 114 type of devices MAY BE possible. I would not buy the device shown on you tube though because it does not add up to me, but then again that's just me.

Edit plus May be x 2
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Art »

Quote "their generator looks way too small to be a 5kw generator. "

________________________________

Hi Trevor ,

I don't think Honza was indicating that the video system was 5 kw but that he had put a deposit to have a 5kw system built .

The way I read it , they are probably still developing the system and using the deposits to fund production .

However , not understanding German , all my information is coming from just looking at the pictures ! : )

Maybe Honza could clarify .

---------------------

I don't think a "buoyancy" machine based on buoyancy only will give overunity if built like Besslers MT 114 because of the reasons that Greendoor gives why a buoyancy machine won't work . I think what Greendoor has missed though , is that a "buoyancy machine " can tap into the enormous amount of energy contained in the atmosphere as a result of gravity . To get the atmospheric pressure difference which I think is needed to get overunity , - you need the height of the water column to be significant .

To get this height using a revolving wheel would probably require a wheel about 20 ft diameter or more submerged in a tank - gets a bit unmanageable both from logistics of size and the amount of water friction that would be experienced !


I think the system that Honza is talking about looks like it would do the job very efficiently and the height of the water column could be easily increased without great expense.

-------------------------

I think this is priceless ! - If this German ( Austrian ? ) machine is a runner , then the closest this forum has come to it is your design , and it is in the Fraud section even though you made it clear that you did not have one running but believed that you could !! : ))

Good going Trevor ! Lets leave it here - Its nice and easy to find and it should be a lesson for us ! : )
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Art,

I did not do much more on this because it would not be cost efficient and Honza's new post information says about 15 thousand for a 5 kw size and that would pay my electric bill for more than ten years, with that said if it can output 5 kw then there would be a sell back to the grid so maybe it could be cost efficient.

I will follow this and see what comes of it.
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Art, Honzo,

I am not sure about this design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... sno0cxzd0I

I made the bucket gears at about 25 cm, 10 buckets full of 3 litre of air in each bucket, so I make about 7.5 Nm of torque at about 6 RPM work output, and I was worried about my above post closing one 5 litre reservoir with 125 Nm of torque, all be it I was working at 3.5 x higher pressure than them and 1.66 greater reservoir volume, so I was using 16.66 x the force to do 5.16 x the work, I hope these guys pull it off because then I will build mine, but I will not lose any more sleep over it, I have better things to build first, "I hope".
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi All,

It seems to me after doing more scenarios that this thread is in the wrong place, it should have been its accusers posts moved here, its my fault for being to week at the time and could not do with the hassle.

By using the heavy compression roller at the top of the wheel I can now address any issues needed to prove this design, this and the experiments I have already done in this field. I can now state that there is no physical problem to stop this Idea working ONCE it is PRIMED.

The forces involved means the positive force ratios become bigger than the negative forces percentage wise the bigger you build it, example, if you double the size of the wheel from 4 meters to 8 meter then there would be double the numbers of reservoirs at double the torque distance from the axle, the reservoirs would be 5 liters still, so that is 50 open reservoirs x 5 liters x 2 m average torque distance from the axle = 500 Newton meters of torque to close or open one reservoir at a time. Water pressure at 8 meters is O.8 bar above normal air pressure.

So the water pressure has doubled but the usable torque has quadrupled!

Question, is 500 newton meters of torque enough to compress a 5 liter reservoir closing against air pressure at 1 bar above normal air pressure so the reservoir can self open against 0.8 bar water pressure. the Answer is yes and then some.

It takes roughly 40 Newton meters (400 kg of direct force) of force to close a 5 lire reservoir at one Bar over normal air pressure. So that would leave 460 newton meters of usable torque to do work.

Ask my accusers how much force they think it would take.

Edit, one of the answers was there in the MT's but only if you looked for it, and applied a bit of imagination, the forces can be found with a bit of research or experiments so there are no excuses. Of course you will want it built to prove it, but that is not going to happen, so you will have to work it out for your selves, but do that before you start stating that this sort of device is impossible to save us all time.
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi all,

I have a couple of pressure and compression roller test to do, then I can draw it all up with all the forces and where and post it.
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: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi all,

if this thing works then I am the victim of fraud not the perpetrator,

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/store/Rosch/KPP/
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Fletcher »

http://revolution-green.com/rosch-overflow/

scroll down to the comments.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: No Height for width, work it out, its a runner if built!

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Fletcher,

I do not no about the comments, my view is that Rosch is quoting the total power out and not the power in, and their units look too small but not having the working volumes I cannot work it out.

As for my designs, if 500 Newton meters of force can open a 5 litre reservoir against 0.8 bar of water pressure then I will be happy.

I am going to do some tests with a 8 m length of of drainage pipe sealed at the bottom and filled with water, then use a 5 litre bellow a bit of hose, a 1 bar pressure release valve, and a non-return valve, then see how many kilograms of force is needed to empty the bellow, would you like to give me your best guess? I put it at 400 kilograms of direct force based on a car foot pump, (Edit, and a 2 meter deep 5 litre reservoir compression test which took 65 kg of direct force to open it).

In short I see no reason a buoyancy wheel could not be made to work using cams, or multi levers operated pumps.

Edit, I would have liked to have checked out the Rosch Innovation AG device for myself, because I have done enough experiments in this field to know how to check their system, I would have took my own amp meters and pressure meters. Even with a small compressed air holding tank you can store many litres of 1 bar compressed air, if you store it at 20 bars then there would be 20 times the volume of air in the holding tank, plus I would know what to look for on the electric side as well, I would like to have got a amp reading on the demonstrated load to have found out the total load, and also checked out the amps in, and amps out under normal running and also checked out the volts in, and volts out, I would of also kept a check on the compressor, and timed the compressor and it amps when it was running, and when or if it had switched off when up to pressure.

There is room for fraud, but there is also room for it to work closed loop IMHO.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Post Reply