It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Possible Free Energy Device - The Geo Genny? Debate with the Inventor

page: 1
8
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:14 PM
So I'm a FE believer but also skeptical that any physical device actually exists.

I'm considering devoting my time and energy in 2011 (and \$100,000 of my own money) to the FE quest. My first thoughts are to do this in the form of a documentary, focusing on those who are working in the field and believe they either already have something that 'works' or are on the verge of a breakthrough. I'll make a thread about it in a week or two - once I've had some time to let the idea brew - if I decide to make a firm commitment to the project.

In the meantime, I followed a link in the comments section of a page on PESWIKI about a gravity device which is 'prepping for production', which led me to the home page of a 'real live FE inventor' living in Cambridgeshire, England.

www.real-free-energy.co.uk...

Here's a short clip from his home page:

The Geo Genny concept Is all about using gravity operated leverage in a very efficient way to gain a 1 to 8 ratio, 1in paid for energy in and 8 outputs free from the input of gravity, the 1 in paid for energy input is to rotate (drive ) the Geo Genny in the conservative force of gravity, and using the input of the constant flow of the kinetic energy of gravity acting on the rotating weighted levers to drive 8 generators to convert the energy from gravity to do useful work, like power our homes and cars.

I call gravity operated levers non-conservative mechanics because when they are rotated in the conservative force of gravity they generate a constant flow of kinetic energy to drive the generators on the lever pivots, wherein gravity is inputting to the system and not conserving the forces so if gravity is not conserving the mechanical energy it must be that the mechanical system is non-conservative, or the mechanics releases gravity from its conservative state, I am not shore how to describe the physics correctly so let just say gravity is being tapped.

The inventor's name is Trevor and he posted his physical address and phone number on his web page (both transparent and brave!)

So I called him and he is real!

I asked him if he'd be interested discussing his work here on ATS if I started a thread and he expressed interest in the idea, so here it is.

Normally we hear of these things via news articles and via 3rd parties, so it's kind of interesting to be able to have our questions and objections answered 'from the horse's mouth'.

I will now email Trevor and let him know how to find the thread.

A request to the resident ATS FE cynics ... please be polite! This isn't meant to be a thread to argue theory about the laws of thermodynamics, it's a thread to discuss Trevor's ideas and invention(s), so please refrain from the usual condescending one-liners and pseudo-intellectual trolling, especially now the ignore feature has been removed

BTW, Trevor is fully aware that his website is a mess.
If there appears to be a consensus that he's onto something, that could be the first area that I could help him out.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Best
RT
edit on 5/1/11 by RogerT because: Added the word 'possible' to the thread title

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:20 PM
add Possible Free Energy Device to your headline .

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:23 PM
Very good idea! All posters, please remember to post HELPFUL information like the OP said, not debates over the laws of physics.

Free Energy Video Series

If you need a starting point on other FE builders, contact this Frank Znidarsic guy. He seems to have a legit theory on FE and you should be able to get in contact with him pretty easily too. The YouTube user has interviewed him in later parts of the series.

I will keep a watch on this because I too am curious on the reality of FE, which seems to have been covered up for centuries...

PS- I just read another post of yours and if you would like an excellent opinion on natural cancer treatment, check out the link in my signature 'Cancer Cure'. In it I discuss Max Gerson's therapy and also link to a documentary which discusses how and for whom it has worked.
edit on 5-1-2011 by prepared4truth because: cancer

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by seedofchucky

Done. Thanks for the contribution.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:50 PM
reply to post by RogerT

Check out this video. Without a doubt one of the best over unity generators that I've ever seen...from what I understand, these guys are on the verge of mass production. I would buy one

vodpod.com...

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:56 PM
Thanks, filed for later viewing if I decide to go ahead with my intention.
All the best.
RT

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:57 PM

Originally posted by RogerT
Here's a short clip from his home page:

I am not shore how to describe the physics correctly so let just say gravity is being tapped.
If there appears to be a consensus that he's onto something, that could be the first area that I could help him out.
Physics and engineering are among the subjects I majored in at the university, so physics is an area I know something about and I'd agree with Trevor that he's not shore [sic] how to describe the physics correctly.

The way I see it there are 2 approaches this analysis can take:
1. Discussion of the physical and engineering principles which would cause such a device to operate. No working model is required for such a discussion, merely applying principles of engineering and physics. By the way this isn't as abstract as it sounds, new airplanes are designed largely in computer models and tested in the computer using known physics before the prototype is built, and this has proven to be a successful approach. But as Trevor himself has stated about not being "shore how to describe the physics", then I'm not sure a discussion about the physics would be fruitful with this self-admitted lack of understanding. That leaves us with option 2:

2. Examination of a working model. If Trevor has found something that actually works, then perhaps he could videotape the item in operation and upload it to youtube. I read some of his website and I noticed one of his lever arm contraptions from this page:

www.real-free-energy.co.uk...

is interestingly similar to the lever arm contraption on Wikipedia's Perpetual motion page:

which carries this caption:

"This is a gallery of some of the perpetual motion machine plans.
-The "Overbalanced Wheel". It was thought that the metal balls on the right side would turn the wheel because of the longer lever arm, but since the left side had more balls than the right side, the torque was balanced and the perpetual movement could not be achieved.
Obviously the design is a little different but the similarities are striking. If Trevor actually got one to work I'd like to see a video of it, but I think the other lever design he's talking about is different, I'd like to see a video of whatever he's got that works.

If he hasn't got a video of a working model, and if he can't explain the physics, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss.

I just have one piece of advice for him after reading some of his website. It seems like the size of the model he's talking about building is fairly large, then he complains about how costly it is. My advice would be to scale down the size of the models, that lowers the cost and can be used to prove (or disprove) the concept before trying to build something on a massive scale.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by RogerT
So I'm a FE believer but also skeptical that any physical device actually exists.

I'm considering devoting my time and energy in 2011 (and \$100,000 of my own money) to the FE quest. My first thoughts are to do this in the form of a documentary, focusing on those who are working in the field and believe they either already have something that 'works' or are on the verge of a breakthrough.
It would be interesting to see if NASA scientists Nelson and House have run across any interesting free energy devices to test:

NASA scientists Nelson & House willing to verify overunity electromagnetic machines

A couple of NASA scientists, Mike Nelson and Ken House, who work on the Space Shuttle project in Huntsville, Alabama have been following the free energy world for years and would like to believe that Tesla type of technology is possible that harnesses limitless energy from the environment via electromagnetic means.

However, this is not a free-for-all invitation for anyone who thinks they have an overunity device. Mike and Ken's pre-requisites are pretty stringent.

In their spare time, they are willing to put their reputation at stake in validating bona fide electromagnetic overunity (more energy out than what was put in). But "spare time" is the key word. They don't have much of it, so they don't want to spend time on things that haven't first been tested to show overunity by others; and they want to review the data that has been collected.
I would say if any devices have at least met their initial screening process, it would be worth documenting what the "NASA Overunity Test Team" found about the project.

But I haven't seen any updates on that since last May and I have a suspicion that most devices out there won't even meet the simple qualification requirements for the NASA team to spend time testing the device. I personally would be interested in knowing if any have met the qualification requirements and what these guys have been up to in this regard. If there was a documentary about these NASA guys performing verification tests on claimed over unity devices, I'd watch it for sure, I think it would be fascinating.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:49 PM
Thanks Arbitrageur for your always level headed, polite and informed contribution to science threads.
I'm not going to attempt to respond to points about Trevor's work, I've invited him to do that personally. If he decides not to participate, then I guess it will be a short thread

Thanks everyone so far for the suggestions regarding a potential docu project. If I do decide this is how I wish to devote 2011, I will create a thread about it, so that would be the place to comment.

If we can keep this thread about Trevor's work that would be better I think than spreading my own agenda over multiple threads.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by RogerT

Be sure to include Wilhelm Reich and Orgone Energy in your research. The US gov went out of its way to destroy him and all public knowledge of his work. It was described as the worst act of censorship in US political history.

A lot of his work can now be seen in many of these current secret government projects discussed on ATS.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:23 PM
Check out Earth Batteries, really cool stuff.

Also for your water powered cars, an AC current at the right frequency looks to be the main factor for on demand hydrogen production at a level where more energy is produced than required to run it. Not sure of the specifics but it is a common technique discussed. There are other ways but this sounds to be the best so far.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:40 PM
Hi All at ATS,

My name is Trevor Lyn Whatford I am the inventor of the Geo Genny, and below is a little bit about the Geo Genny.

I would like to make it clear that I do have a good physic education of known physic, but when it comes to applying this education to the Geo Genny I find my physic education inadequate, my physic education did not prepare me to describe the physic of a device that consumes the conservative force of gravity and uses it as a secondary energy input to do useful work, to date I have not seen a physic model that can explain this, thus with the lack of a physic model lets keep the arguments simple.

The Geo Genny will be used as a gravity assisted gearbox wherein there is a paid for input of 1 in ( drive system ) and a gravity generated torque of 8 out on the 8 would be generator shafts, for every 360 turn of the main wheel there is a 360 turn on each of the 8 generators shafts in relation to the generators, in short it has one in and eight out, so the only argument should be will it do what I say it will do, can the torque on one generator match the input torque that is applied to the centre of the main wheel? Take a good long hard look at all of my Geo Genny video before making your minds up, the truth is what we all need as a starting point.

The Mechanical principle of The Geo Genny is to gain a constant and steady rotary torque on a number of would be generator shaft using the input of gravity acting on a number of levers that are pushed over by a lever connecting wheel and a push over wheel this has the effect of having preloaded leverage while gravity has a downward pull on the levers and lever connecting wheel, this setup allows the main wheel to be rotated for eight times less energy than the kinetic energy that gravity puts in, this I put down to the efficiency of the system, thus keeping the main wheel in a reasonable state of balance while the leverage forces are transferred to the would be generator shafts, this happens as the levers follow the main wheel round in a circular motion, the levers keep there same angle and torque, but the would be generator angle is changed 360 degree in each main wheel rotation this means there is 360 degree movement between the generator shaft and the generator, because the lever rotate with the main wheel means that when the electro magnetic forces build up ( the generators resistance ) the extra load is not transferred to the main wheel so the input power can remain steady while gravity take care of the extra load. this is displayed by two weight hanging off the would be lever pivots on one of my you tube videos.

www.youtube.com...
More testing of the Geo Genny
www.youtube.com...
This video is not so good,
Note, because the pull round test is pulled from a peg it take a bit of practise to get the right pull angle so when watching the video below it is the last couple of pulls on each test that shows the proper pull loads.  www.youtube.com...

Note, the numbers of the generator pivot is not restricted to eight, there are a large number of variables that can be changed to make the Geo Genny suit its designed applications.

The Geo Genny project status, at this point in time I am sourcing some small generator with gear boxes, then I can build the Geo Genny design around the generators specifications this will take time.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:40 PM

Originally posted by GeoGenny
Take a good long hard look at all of my Geo Genny video before making your minds up, the truth is what we all need as a starting point.
Hi Trevor and thanks for posting on ATS.

It was nice to see all the hands-on research you're doing on your website.

I'm looking forward to seeing your video but the tech support at my ISP said they need to send a service tech out next week to fix my internet because I'm losing too many packets. I suspect that's why I have trouble downloading videos, but I can make text posts for now. So I'm looking forward to watching your video and trying to download it now but I can't download any other videos so I expect it will be next week before I can watch it. After I watch it, I'll pop back in here with comments and/or questions.

Thanks again.

Edit to add: I was able to get about half the first video but only a few seconds of the 2nd and 3rd videos. But I think I've seen enough to have the same question as Stefan who commented there:

you really need to show a selfrunning mode, otherwise no one will believe the 8:1 energy amplification.
To which you replied:

Hi Stefan, What you are looking at is the Geo Genny’s gravity assisted gear box, next year I will build a small scale electric driven model complete with 8 generators, then it will be scaled up to be driven of the grid with a 6 megawatt input to drive the Hydraulic motor to﻿ turn the wheel at 22 rpm, there will be 16 x 3 megawatt wind turbine generator as they are off the shelf and have there own gearboxes already, plus are proven, there would be 8 on each side of the wheel, 42 mw output 24/7.

So I think those two comments pretty much sums up the project status. You're planning to build the next phase, which is really where the concept will be proven, or not as to whether it can create more energy output than is input. Any guess when this might be complete? July perhaps?

I'm not really sure if I understand your concept, but if I do then there might be a way to test at least the torque multiplication without the generators. I actually read about this from the qualification requirements for overunity established by the two NASA scientists. Basically all you need is some string, and a shaft on the main device and shafts on each of the 8 outputs, and some weights.

Basically the idea is to attach the string to the shaft and wrap the string around the shaft, then attach a weight to the string. It may help to attach larger shafts, maybe even hollow pipe or tubing.

This will solve the measurement problem you had trying to keep the scale at the correct angle, because the string with the weight attached will always be pulling straight down. If the torque is really being amplified then you should be able to lift more weight on the output shafts than the weight which is being lowered from the input shaft.

Here is the reference that gave me this idea:

peswiki.com...:NASA_scientists_Nelson_%26_House_willing_to_verify_overunity_electromagnetic_machines

the designer needs to test their motor under a known mechanical load. If they don’t have a dynamometer available, then the simplest way to do this is to simply have their motor lift a known weight by winding a string or flexible cable of some sort around a spindle. This will serve as their homemade “dynamometer” if you will. We need to know the amount of weight lifted, the height the weight is lifted and the speed the weight is lift to get an output power measurement. Normally the speed is determined by the RPM’s of the output spindle. So, if the designer knows the height lifted with each RPM then all we need to know is the RPM’s of the spindle (not the motor if gear ratios are involved) to have the lifting speed.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well enough nor am I sure I fully understand your concept, but I hope you can get some idea from that on how you can demonstrate torque multiplication that way, if it exists, by using pretty much what you already have. All you need is 9 strings and 9 weights, you already have 9 shafts but you might want to make them a little larger for easier and more accurate torque measurement.

And if this isn't feasible or if I'm totally missing your concept I can just wait until the self running version is built and look forward to seeing that.

Whenever the self-running version is done, maybe you can start a new thread on ATS to give us an update. That's all for now but if I have any other comments after I'm able to watch all the videos next week I'll let you know.

Best regards.

edit on 6-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: added comment

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by GeoGenny

I tried to download the videos again and still have problems in my end, but I did manage to see more of the third video and see you already have the weights and chains!

So I think you can almost skip the generator for now and use the weights you already have as the homemade dynamometers. Because if you add generators, you'll have to measure the output somehow. Why not skip the generators and go straight to measuring the input the generators will receive using the homemade dynamometers? (and we know that the output from the generators won't be any greater than their input, it will be somewhat less after accounting for efficiency losses).

The input wheel looks like it has a pulley or something attached to it that would be ideal for putting a weight with a string, or cable on it, to measure the work in.

So then you can compare the mass, distance, and time of the weight descending on the input, with the mass, distance, and time of the masses being elevated on the eight outputs. Actually since the time will be the same, you can just cancel that out and compare the work in versus the work out. So of you're getting 8 times as much energy out as you put in, you should be able to have a 1kg weight attached to a string wrapped around the shaft of the input fall let's say 20 cm, and have eight 1kg weights attached to strings wrapped around the shaft of the output (what would eventually be the generator input) be elevated by the same distance.

Or if it doesn't work out that way, you can keep adding weight to the string wrapped around the input until you get the output to do the desired lifting. My guess would be you'd need about 8.5 kg on the input with 1kg on each of the outputs if all the shafts are the same size. (or a little more than 8kg because of friction). But if the device multiplies the input as you suggest, you won't need that much weight on the input.

If the input shaft is larger than the output shaft, of course you have to account for that. But unless I'm missing something, I don't see why you need generators to show the principle. The weights and strings should demonstrate that.

Cheers and good luck.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 07:54 AM
Hi Arbitrager,

Thank you for your input, firstly looking at your picture of the levers taken from the perpetual motion site tells me one thing and that is if they had thought to tap the leverage of the falling levers instead of wasting it on the stops then they could have had a working gravity wheel hundreds of year ago, they should have discovered the Multi Lever Phenomenon not me, then they would have had hundreds of years to perfect it, that to me is a shame when I think how many people have been so close without seeing it.

Back to the thread topic,

I do not see much point in using string and weights when the fish scale is doing the same job and I have used weights hanging off chains, I am happy with the Geo Genny tests and now will take it to the next stage.

My game plan,

I have to find 2 suitable generators one is to drive the devices motor the second is for a lighting array, there will be no cables connected to the device, there can be no battery's, and no test meters, so the generators will have to be powerful enough to drive the drive motor, and lighting array, the Geo Genny will be started with a hand held electric drill to take it up to speed until the generators kick in and take over, the loop then can be shown closed and the lighting array will show the output no meters just a clear demonstration of a closed loop system, I know what puts me off a lot you tube videos so I will remove those element from my demonstration, I cannot say when this will be finished as my work involves a lot of time away from home, my last contract was three month in Brazil so no work was done on my designs for three months, this is frustrating but that life.

I agree with you that there is not much point carrying on with this thread until the next stage is completed, I will however keep Roger up to date with any news.

Once again thank you for your input, regards Trevor

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 07:23 AM
The point of keeping thread is:

Elaborate some practical use
of this device...

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by Miccey

Can you be a bit more specific. It sounds like you are wondering what would be the practical use of a device that creates excess energy ... surely that's not what you mean?

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 09:38 AM
Just be careful...

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by GeoGenny
Thank you for your input, firstly looking at your picture of the levers taken from the perpetual motion site tells me one thing and that is if they had thought to tap the leverage of the falling levers instead of wasting it on the stops then they could have had a working gravity wheel hundreds of year ago, they should have discovered the Multi Lever Phenomenon not me, then they would have had hundreds of years to perfect it, that to me is a shame when I think how many people have been so close without seeing it.
I don't quite follow you Trevor.

The stops are what provide the leverage. they force the balls to stay further from the axis of the wheel, which creates more torque on the right side (and this would work if there weren't too many balls on the left side).

If you get rid of the stops, then the balls on the riight side will be the same distance from the axis as the balls on the left side and there will be no torque. right? So you'll have to explain to me how you think it can work without the stops, since the stops are the key part of the device illustrated (of course it doesn't work, but that's the concept anyway).

I do not see much point in using string and weights when the fish scale is doing the same job and I have used weights hanging off chains, I am happy with the Geo Genny tests and now will take it to the next stage.
Hi Trevor, if you can get it self-running with generators, you certainly don't need to mess with the weights on strings.

But if you think the fish scale is doing the same job, you clearly don't understand the difference between the fish scale and the weights on chains or strings.

All you're measuring with the fish scale or the weights on chains is force, you can't accurately measure work input or output, the way you're doing it with the fish scale.

By wrapping the chains of the weights around the shafts, and rotating the shafts, you have an extra parameter the fish scale doesn't provide, you can measure the amount of work input, and work output. You can measure how much shorter the output chains are versus how much longer the input chain is, after part of a rotation of the device. The fish scale won't tell you that.

The scientific formula for work is work=force x distance

So let's say you wrap chains with weights attached around all 8 outputs, and the 1 input, and measure the lengths of the chains. Then you let go of the weight on the input chain and it starts falling and rotates your device say, half a turn, while lifting the weights on all the 8 outputs. If you elevate the output weights all by 0.2 meters, and they all weigh 1 kg, then the output work is 0.2 Kgf-m for each of the 8 outputs, or 1.6 Kgf-m for all eight outputs.

If it takes a 4kg weight on a rope wrapped around the input shaft (and say the shaft is a different size) it moves down 0.1m, then the input work done is force x distance which is 4kgf x 0.1m = 0.4 Kgf-m

So in that example, you can demonstrate the work out is 1.6 and the work in is 0.4 Kgf-m, so you can show the output is 4 times greater than the input.

The fish scale can't do that. I just wanted you to understand why the fish scale is NOT the same thing. But if you prefer to skip this, and go straight to the generators, that's fine with me, I was just trying to save you the time and expense of the generators when you don't really need them to demonstrate the concept of the output being greater than the input.

I also thought you would have 8 output generators, one attached to each one of the output shafts? (or at least 4 if you wanted to leave 4 not hooked up for the demo). So I'm not sure how you're going to do it with just two, but for now I'll just look forward to seeing your self-running version, good luck with that. Like you said people have been working on similar concepts for over a hundred years, so if it was easy, it would be done already.

Originally posted by Miccey
Elaborate some practical use
of this device...
If it makes 8 times as much electricity as it uses, then buy \$100 of electricity, make \$800 worth of electricity, sell it back to the power company, net profit \$700.

Repeat, get rich.

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Hmm..
@the last paragraf Arbi..
I just want to know what i can do practicaly with this device.
Hook it up to my powergrid in my house?

new topics

top topics

8