Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Chas Campbell free power motor  (Read 642598 times)

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #180 on: August 23, 2007, 05:27:37 AM »
Here are full details for the late comers

Put the following in series:

FWBR -> digital ampmeter -> analog ampmeter -> lightbulb(s)

In parallel to the lamp(s)
one digital voltmeter
one analog voltmeter

At the output of the FWBR a big electrolytic capacitor (with voltage
breakdown reserve)
to smooth out ripple and make DC.

At the inverter input do the same thing using both analog and digital
meters simultaneously.
You can use an ampmeter at the battery, but measure voltage right at the
inverter,
otherwise the wires between battery and inverter could (WILL !) drop the
voltage.


what we need is the basic design:

Gearing Details:

1. Input power from a 750 watt motor (no special switching?)

2. Drive motor is geared to Disc 1 with a ratio of .....

3. Disc 1 is geared to Disc 2 with a ratio of ......

4. Disc 2 is geared to Disc 3 with a ratio of ......

5. Disc 3 ..... etc. until the drive to the generator is reached:

N. Disk x is geared to the generator shaft with a ratio of .....


Disc Details:

Disc 1:  Diameter in inches, thickness in inches, weight, dia. of attached pulley.
Disc 2:  Ditto.
Disc 3:  Ditto.

Other Details:

If there is any special switching, or assembly provisos, or whatever.  On the surface, just adding a flywheel on its own should not give any kind of power gain, so what exactly is he  doing to get the COP>1 effect that he claims

Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #181 on: August 23, 2007, 02:02:02 PM »
Sounds adequate except your last statement scares me:  "On the surface, just adding a flywheel on its own should not give any kind of power gain, so what exactly is he  doing to get the COP>1 effect that he claims?"

Power x Time = Energy   Watts x Seconds = Joules

Any system element that stores energy, be it a flywheel, capacitor, spring, battery, inductor or whatever can easily and inherently exhibit "power gain".  Charge up a capacitor or battery with a trickle charge of 1W and then short it out with a copper bar if you don't understand.  Thousands of watts output, one watt input.  When measuring for energy performance, measuring power is not conclusive unless time is fully acounted for.  I wrote a long post on this in this thread. 

If you just cannot or will not measure total watthours in and out while taking the total machine from a dead stop to full speed full load and then back to a dead stop,

and you insist on only measuring instantaneous power in and out after the machine is already up to speed

and the machine contains a large energy-store, then you must measure the power using only real (purely resistive...no reactive imaginary power loads) and constant steady (no measuring momentary or short peaks) loads

and you must extend the time of steady-state measurement for a period much longer than that period which represents the energy stored in the flywheel and all other kinetic and electrical storage devices in the system.  Long sentence...sorry. 

The measurements must be taken at steady state conditions if only power is to be measured, in other words.  To find out when a steady state is achieved, get the machine up to speed, add loads to whatever output level you desire and let the machine settle back to steady speed before measuring.  During true steady state conditions, the input and load power and flywheel speed will be stable and unchanging.

The input voltage and the load must remain fixed and steady and the system running speed cannot be increasing or decreasing during the measurement period which must be longer than the time constant of all the energy stores combined. 

The idea is you must either measure total input and output energy though at least one full state-cycle or you can measure instantaneous real power but only while the system is absolutely stabilized at equilibrium.  If you measure power while the overall system is either accumulating energy or releasing stored energy, or after the load or the input voltage is varied, or when the flywheel speed is changing, your numbers will  be wrong!

Anything short of taking one of those two proven approaches and you have demonstrated and proven absolutely nothing.  The instantaneous power method is very much more rigorous, tedious and difficult to do, (adding all those steady-state equilibrium requirements and the perceived need to use an inverter, battery, output rectifier and filter capacitor to avoid power factor, phase shift and sine distortion errors) than using the integrated energy product method with genuine wide bandwidth AC multiplying-integrating watthour meters.  

Adding all those extra requirements and external equipment adds many opportunities for accidental error or confusion, not to mention outright fraud and self-delusion.  Trying to compensate the input measurement for the losses of the input inverter or the output bridge rectifier and figuring a factor for the remaining capacitor ripple at the output, (which will be quite large at any power level near the 3500W being claimed unless it is a truly gigantic and very expensive capacitor). 

In my not-all-that-humble opinion, the true multiplying watthour meters method is far, far cheaper, easier, faster and more accurate.   Doing useful metrology on power trains, whether electronic or mechanical, is not as simple and foolproof as most people suppose.

I will not elaborate further unless anyone has challenges or questions about my statements.  Then I will be pleased to prove and/or explain my position further.

Humbugger
« Last Edit: August 23, 2007, 11:15:36 PM by Humbugger »

Offline Joh70

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #182 on: August 24, 2007, 10:12:07 AM »
My view: Thy flywheel cannot have a function other than storage and wire back some energy. If it is overunity, than the system should NOT be connected to conventional net. it should run autarc. then NO measurement is needed to see if its Overunity. And simple measurements to see how much power out could be gained until the wheel stops under higher and higher loads. Everything else is a unfinished concept or circus.

Offline Dingus Mungus

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 859
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #183 on: August 24, 2007, 11:38:47 AM »
@Humbugger

I would have to agree...
I've posted something stating the same several times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel#Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage
It's not like we're making this up...

~Dingus Mungus
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 12:06:13 PM by Dingus Mungus »

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #184 on: August 28, 2007, 03:23:17 AM »
Thanks for accuracy suggestions guys,

Okay, Well how about this: total power in [start up and running] vrs total power out in load- That means if i get your watt meters, and measure, EXACTLY in run time, what Chas used to 'store' and or create his gravity 'SINK' and what out put is being out putted into the resistive the load.

IE. measure what it took the inverter and battery to create the centrifugal force [In Watts/Time] vrs what the total power in the system is out putting in the load. [By run time]

Then by your analogy, it should be unity...I bet it will be over unity

So Gravity is not putting in the excess energy, and we are only storing energy in the fly wheel, meaning his 800 watt motor used all the energy in run time to store the energy in the fly wheel and Chas is out puts this in his 3500 watt loads.

Okay , now i know how you guys think, this is not with out its usefulness to silence skeptics upon this investigation/confirmation, plus this is also useful to explain to people how these system work.

Plus this is also useful to make you scratch your heads ;D

Guys lets try and encourage Chas, he reads these forums, and deserves our courtesy and respect for allowing us to get closer and to help him help all of us.

I have just recently spoken to him on the phone and he was a little discouraged by some comments in the forum, lets try and give him the confirmation that we are really only trying to help ;)

regards
ashtweth






Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7982
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #185 on: August 28, 2007, 03:47:54 AM »
Hi Ash,
if you let the output load of 3500 Watts run for
more than  15 minutes and the input power is
no more than 800 Watts all the time with his setup you
can be sure that you have overunity.

For better calculation afterwards try to get the weights
of all the single wheels and their RPM.

There can not be so much storage in these relatively small
flywheels..
Also they do not rotate so fast, so after a few minutes of time
all their stored energy has be used up and if after 15 minutes
the device can still outputs 3500 Watts  with only 800 Watts of
input we really have "free power".

Looking forward to your tests and many thanks again
to Chas to make this possible.

Regards, Stefan.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 06:25:22 AM by hartiberlin »

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #186 on: August 28, 2007, 04:06:46 AM »
Hi Stefan,

Thanks man, will do , and thanks for reminding me, you know it sort of reminds me of the RV , where, after they create a resonance condition, they clip the peak of the sine waves, like an energy 'swing' and you only tap the 'peaks' and do not destroy the momentum.

This is also how Chas described it to me, after he creates center fugal force his system maintains the balance, and only a 'tiny' bit of input is needed to keep the action going.


Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7982
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #187 on: August 28, 2007, 04:13:11 AM »
Yes, maybe it has to do with "tapping inertia" !

What is interesting is the change of
acceleration of a mass is
described mathematically by a rocking event ( in German language:
"Ruck")

But next then what is the change of a "Ruck" ?
This is never told in university mechanical classes...

Can a "Ruck" or the change of a "Ruck"  tap inertia ?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 06:26:14 AM by hartiberlin »

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #188 on: August 28, 2007, 04:36:02 AM »
Stefan Exactly, what happens when you put a child on a 'swing' and she swings very high and you only tap her with little energy to keep the momentum going.

But how do you extract the energy from the swing so the 'inertia' stays the same?
Perhaps Chas has to a degree done this.

In the RV resonance 'swing' the peak sine waves  'tap' is the extracted OU, well thats how Daivd Kou keeps his battery charged he cant explain it by any other conventional means,its  a little more elaborate with half waves and ful waves AC theory etc, but thats the 'gist' of it. Im not sure if Chas has done the inertia process, your 15 mins test will clear that up.


Offline oouthere

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #189 on: August 28, 2007, 04:57:18 AM »
Hiya Ash,

Just let Chas know that even if his machine is found not to be over unity, his altruistic attitude is what we all hold in common.  I thought I had o/u several times, but my understanding had to change to accept the out come.

It'll only take one good idea to make the world a new place!

Rich

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #190 on: August 28, 2007, 05:03:02 AM »
Great answer Rich :), and it does Take Altruism to disclose FE. With out OPEN sourced we will never progress, i feel peoples consciousness will alter with this disclosure, de centralization will make us better human beings.

Chas deep down i think knows this, and cares.

 

Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #191 on: August 28, 2007, 07:06:04 AM »
Great answer Rich :), and it does Take Altruism to disclose FE. With out OPEN sourced we will never progress, i feel peoples consciousness will alter with this disclosure, de centralization will make us better human beings.

Chas deep down i think knows this, and cares.

 

I agree that Charles has that brave and persistent pioneer attitude we can all use more of.  I also agree that his motives and efforts seem to have been selfless and quite extraordinary for many years! 

If I have said anything in my posts that was perceived as discouraging to Charles, I sincerely apologize.  My only agenda is to help achieve quality energy measurements.

I'm not convinced that everyone is on the same page quite yet regarding all the details of good testing approaches, but I think the problems are mostly in the terminology. 

I agree with Stefan that 15 minutes continuous at any load greater than a couple of KW (real resistive) ought to be plenty of time to settle the system into steady-state running so that instantaneous power measurements would suffice and avoid any error due to flywheel-storage effects.  That "steady-state" approach was one of the two I described.

The other approach requires the watthour meters and simply counts all the energy going in vs all that going out during the entire duration of the runup, plus any arbitrary stable-running period you choose and the complete spin-down. 

Either approach requires using essentially resistive loads on the system output (which ensures only real forward power) and measuring only the real power to the system input from the AC grid (if used).

Output rectification and filtering is not needed given wideband true rms metering and resisive loads.  Power factor into a pure resistance is, by definition, unity; phase shift between voltage and current is, by definition, zero.  True rms metering will take care of any amplitude distortions. 

Meters used must, of course, have enough bandwidth to accommodate the frequency of the output power.  This requirement could be problematic in regard to using low cost watthour meters if the frequency is outside the 45-70Hz range.

Input battery and inverter are not needed if the input power measuring method can measure only real power and ignore reactive power.  Adding reactive power here will falsely lower the COP calculated, as it would make the input appear falsely larger.

Because each of these external elements adds inefficiencies, I'd try to avoid them, personally.  I would guess that Charles would be less comfortable also, seeing several energy-stealing power conditioning devices tacked into the power train.

Of course, if 3500/800 output to input ratios or anything close to that can be achieved in the steady state, those external losses would be easily negligible.  But if the result is only a bit more than unity, or a bit less, it might be hard to sort out all the various external losses.

Okay...I've said all I can say except thanks for listening and giving consideration and thought to my suggestions.  I hope they make sense to you all; they do to me.

Also, thanks to all, especially to Charles and Ashtweth, for facilitating these measurement efforts!  I look forward to seeing the results on video and in Ashtweth's report to the forum. 

Humbugger

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #192 on: August 28, 2007, 02:03:13 PM »
I have to agree with Humbugger re measurements having been involved many times in measuring projects.
Being a member of the NEC (New Energy Congress) I would like to attend the day you intend to validate and test the device. I would be non intrusive and be an independent observer. I live only a couple of hours away from Brisbane and will be in the country in September. I have to go to NZ tommorrow for a couple of days re a magnetic motor , but will be back until mid September. I would be happy to sign a Non disclosure and you can look up my references on the NEC website.
I admire Chas Campbells spirit, motives and intentions and he should be applauded. However we must also take care that we do get accurate measurements and methodology that would put the device beyond doubt.
I have delt with many inventors for many years, however I am sad to report that they have often misled themselves in reading or seeing data selectively. I am not suggesting this applies here, but we must be certain of the outcomes.
By default I have become a skeptic by often revealing flawed methodologies in test data. This does not diminish my belief that some day a break through will come.
I wish all who are involved in the project every success and hope you will consider my offer of attending on behalf of the NEC
Kind Regards
Mark

Offline Mem

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #193 on: August 28, 2007, 10:10:29 PM »
After reading all the comments on the tread, it?s amazes me to see ?how smart the energy research people are. (Hum- I enjoy reading your comments. You are like a OU detective! You may get hired for that. Not by me thou LOL.

Good work Chas! You are an inspiring man, your work shall continue to progress and can?t be stop, just so you know.

Like previously has said your discovery may just be ?kinetic storage system?
It may very well look that way for us from outside.

But as a ou research scientist: We must write down the results we find and look into how we can further improve the technology.
And not to write down or spend time with those things that we have not found yet! To do so we throw the baby out with the bath water.
The technological breakthrough that we are achieved in every field today, It could have killed us 200 years a go if we made public announcement about ?inventions that are going to come next 200 years. As we all know that it?s true. Then surely we say the same today that, we are undreamed of the innovations yet to come just  in 10 years. You see the point here. 
 
Just like Chas, we need pioneers and way showers from every race and age.
Just imagine if had few more pioneers like Chas in their experienced and mature years to help us? As Chinese has said: Man is not mature before the age 70. So much for that, lots of mature man barely can walk after the age 70.

Hey you guys remember: It was more then a decade a go that China hired 800 retired German engineers to improve their economy, they weren?t kidding. They know the wisdom of their ancestors.   


Ash?s comments: This is also how Chas described it to me, after he creates center fugal force his system maintains the balance, and only a 'tiny' bit of input is needed to keep the action going.   

This could be the Chas?s invention breakthrough, but can?t we further improve this? Oh sure we can!
But, this will take all of our support thou. Impossible, takes just a little longer.

As from me, how about this:

 Take Chas?s invention and install a prime mover using a 7.5 HP RV  motor?  As we all know 7.5 HP RV Motor uses only 65 to 70 Watts of input power (in a idle mode)

Hey Chas, I hope you get to hear this idea and apply on your invention.

Mem>>

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #194 on: August 29, 2007, 02:15:35 AM »
@Hum

If Chas's wheel machine ran in a closed box, and you measured the heat generated and added that to the output, could this count also in the final results?

I have always been curious about the heat.

I think it was on peswiki or something that I saw a new device chip waffer or something that made electricity from heat. What if the drive motor and generator were covered with these also. Take some of that energy and return it to source.

Or maybe I'm just trying to draw water from a rock.

Sometimes in my 100s of tests and dodads, OU would be so close and the motors would be so hot. Hello.......

Does anyone have the plans for Chas's machine so we can consider replicating it. I imagine that at a certain point in the wheel exchanges there is a partial void that occurs between the push of the movite and swirl of the captive sides. Both the larger wheels are acting as centrifugal and and the smaller pulley wheels are acting as centripital drag reducers. The drag from the generator is so far away from this drive motor moving all that mass with rotational gain, central void, and drag curtain. This is just totally smart, smart, smart. A motion coil. Two poles with a void.

I want one! I'm sure after a first replication, you could then sell the plans all over. Even make and sell unassembled or assembled units. Call Ikea. lol Geez wooden wheels, who would have thought.