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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Chas Campbell free power motor  (Read 721713 times)

esaruoho

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
    • Lackluster / Esa Juhani Ruoho - melodic electronic music
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #765 on: September 14, 2007, 11:32:21 PM »
i was trying to tune up the mass email of Chas's to see if it would make more sense. does it make more sense now? (ive only added punctuation and dashes. By the way, what about the end of the gravity wheel billiard ball demo? i think it starts at 32:31..

"First build a flywheel that will produce at least twice as much energy as you need to drive your alternator.
When finished you should have trouble seeing it moving as it runs in its own space,
After a few trial runs i built one by having a h-t steel shaft keeyed each end before a flange or a disc was slipped along to the center and welded.
The flange was then drilled and tapped to take studs, using a router i cut a circle 600mm in diameter out of custom board with a hole in the center to take the shaft. This was attached to the flange using studs with washers and lock nuts. The second circle had a hole in the center large enough to fit over the flange.
This was fitted from the other end and screwed to the first wheel.
By doing this i could try different speeds and drives until i was satisfied i had a combination that would work with what i had - which was a .075 hp single phase electric motor and a 3.5kva alternator.
The flywheel ended up being 72mm thick and 590mm in diameter. I then fitted a steel band around my wheel. This added more power - my theory being - if you create centrifugal force you can drive anything - as long as the wheel keeps spinning.
I ended up with an alternator fitted with a 4.5inch pulley, driven by a 9inch pulley. The alternator speed was 3146rpm at that speed it was easy to run electrical appliances for a period.
Now to the most important part.
To keep the wheel spinning i wanted to build a power grid which had a single power supply to a switch that worked on a rotating system.
To this i would have 6 identical electric motors connected - they would all drive to a common shaft in the center - imagine a clock with your motors situated at 1-3-5-7-9-11, The switch would direct power to one motor at a time with a overlap that provided power to the second, before the first was switched off.
This means one motor is working while the others are cooling down - on this drive shaft i would have a smaller flywheel - to compensate the power required to drive 6 sets of belts - as the motors are like the alternator - they require very little power to spin.
Drive this shaft at approx half the speed of your motors - from this shaft double your speed to your main flywheel then using pulleys as large as possible drive your alternator.
All you need then is a simple device that prevents your alternator (from) producing more power then your system is capable of maintaining."

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #766 on: September 14, 2007, 11:38:36 PM »
stephan .. I am disappointed you have banned humbugger - every argument requires balance

Yes, he did not have the required "balance".

Also he was only here to criticize , but he never did any own experiments
or tests..

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #767 on: September 14, 2007, 11:42:31 PM »
G'day Stefan,


Also he was only here to criticize , but he never did any own experiments
or tests..

A bit difficult if you are bedridden most of the time. Besides, often his criticism was well founded.

Hans von Lieven

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #768 on: September 14, 2007, 11:51:43 PM »
There is a difference between a CONSTRUCTIVE critique, and
downright DESTRUCTIVE, NEGATIVE and ABUSIVE bashings.

 Many like Humbugger are comparable to a guy who stalks the
malls looking for a handicapped person - so that he can make
fun of them mercilessly.

 A lack of soul, and only a dark cloud of negativity... and that
attitude is not only unhealthy for them, but for all others
who are actually TRYING to make new discoveries and
a big difference.

 


sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #769 on: September 14, 2007, 11:52:56 PM »
@ Hans
   
   i have never heared Milkovic claim perpetual motion from any of his devices. He claims USABLE energy from the LEVERAGE. i have however seen  MANY OTHER PEOPLE who see his device, claim that it is OU, when it is not.
There is nothing OU about the Milkovic device.

.
Hi Smokey,
Have you ever built and tested a Milkovic machine?
While I will agree with your assessment regarding the distribution of energy, it only applies to a non resonant machine. A non resonant machine and a resonant machine are two completely different mechanisms.
A non resonant unit is a slug. It looks like it is operating correctly, but no particular power is apparent at the end of the lever. Most people stop here and call it a day.
Milkovic calls his machine an oscillator for a very good reason. Significant power is generated in the lever once the right combination of weights, springs and dimensions is found. It's not that hard, but it takes a while to get it tuned.
I built one to see if what he says is true, and I'm satisfied that he is right. I didn't perform any sophisticated measurements because it was obvious to me that what Milkovic claimed really worked.
BTW, I've built many prototypes of machines that failed miserably. This was one of the few exceptions.

Ted





I have constucted this machine in several forms the most simplistic are nothing more than a pendulum, a double fulcrum, and a lever. This is where the majority of my energy calculations are taken from, using several different masses and pendulum-masses, shaft lengths,lever lengths. It has been constant and exact in every case that i have tried. Granted i have not attempted ot construct every possible size variation, as such would be impossible and more time-consuming than one person could endure.

I spent a lot of time on this particular design because of he way it was originally presented to me. It does appear to have a lot more force on the other end of the lever - BUT, this is FORCE not energy.  Its the same thing archemedes did thousands of years earlier.

There are two technologies involved here: 1) Pendulums  and 2) levers - both of which have been improved upon, calculated, observed, and studied for nearly 3,000 +/- years at the very least.
There are two of the only technologies that we have nearly perfected. The operation under a wide range of conditions and configurations is well known. If there IS any "exact science", the area of pendulums and levers would be included in it,
With recent improvements of aerodynamic pendulums and magnetic-bearings we can reduce friction to close to 0.
Causing them to function in the range of ideal functionality. (no losses)


i have created a rotary engine based on his principles which runs very good, but is not overunity.
basically i have placed a crank+wheel in place of his water pump mechanism. This configuration undergoes signifigant losses, but achieves rotary motion rather simply, which makes it very usefull for toying with spinning magnetic decives :)   just swing the pendulum and it will go for a good time.

So far i have constructed 36 pendulum-levers and have performed extensive testing only to prove myself wrong in the end.

As far as "resonant" i am a bit confused on what you mean here. (almost) all pendulums become resonant when they are free-swinging.  If by resonance, you mean applying a pushing-force to the pendulum at precise moments in its cycle, then yes i have done this with my 3 that operate using clockwork+weights mounted in a case and handing from the lever, pendulum swinging below that.
If on the other hand you are refering to the resonant frequency of the lever itself, i started to tackle that as well, however - in order to have a reasonably short lever, you would need a pendulum that weighed in excess of 2kg, on an arm 1 meter or less, which quite simply was not pheasable so i abandoned that idea.

Do not confuse Energy with Force (from leverage). To properly test this device use the known energy value calculated from the pendulum mass and the length of the arm (and subsequent time it takes to swing from 90-degrees to downward vertical) - then measure the energy output by lifting a known mass a known distance over an ammount of time on the other end of the lever. Under ideal conditions the two energy values would be  = in all of my replications.  Realistically there is more energy required into setting the pendulum into motion, and in keeping it in motion by periodic "kicking", than is retrieved by adding up the energy values of each up+down motion of the lever in the devices that i have created.

Furthermore: i have found that in my clockwork designs where the "kicking" is precisely timed, and not subject to manual-error - that the energy scales down on the lever output, just as it does on the pendulum-input after the pendulum reaches its normal swing speed.

If there is a magic combination of pendulum-mass / Arm length / Lever length / Fulcrum location that produces results inconsistent to this when measuring the Energy involved, i would love to know the ratios so that i can repruduce those results.

What i am seeing, as what is confirmed true with the actual water Pumps that are being commercially produced with his technology, is that this system is a Force Amplifier. it utilizes leverage in the most efficient manner that (i believe) mankind has ever achieved. This is almost pure power conversion. I am very impressed by his machines and the sheer ingenuity it must have taken to come up with this. But , as yet, i have not seen any actual output energy that is not accounted for by the energy imposed upon the swinging pendulum. - measure Energy not force. if you want to compare Force to Force, then measure the "hammer" force, then measure for force by putting a plate at the bottom of the pendulum's swing and measure the impact force - then you have apples and apples.

I oppoligize for being incorrect about Milkovic "not" claiming PM. I had only seen at that time a few older video tapes of him playing with his tripple-beam scale, and his devices which he designed for industrial water pumps. as well as a few demonstration videos of smaller water pumps (im guesing for rural use). I stand corrected on this issue, as i have now watched 2 videos of him making such claims.

sorry for rambling on, but i dont think i could have said what i needed to say with less.

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #770 on: September 15, 2007, 12:08:39 AM »
Only the skeptics armchair negatory comity want him back... or,
one of his 15 other fake supporters accounts that are begging for himself
to get back as his main account.


shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #771 on: September 15, 2007, 12:23:29 AM »
I challenge the Humbugger bashers to find a single post where Humbugger was wrong.  Is there only room on this forum for the preacher and his choir?

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #772 on: September 15, 2007, 12:38:45 AM »
G'day Smokey,

You are correct in what you are saying, if you want to take it a bit further have a look at George Constantinesco's work in the 1920's. It has all relevant stuff of Milkovic's right there in his patents and real world applications.

It would seem that the Serbian Patent office do not check foreign precedents. Milkovic's patents are not worth the paper they are written on.

But we really should not be discussing Milkovic in this thread. Sorry Stefan.

Hans von Lieven

derricka

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 156
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #773 on: September 15, 2007, 03:50:09 AM »

Here is THE SOLUTION to the puzzle How Can This Be True?
The upper line of each triangle appears to be straight (an optical illusion) when in fact, they are very slightly curved.
The line in the upper triangle sags very slightly reducing the area of the total triangle.
The line in the lower triangle balloons upward very slightly, expanding the area of the total triangle.
This forced difference in area between the two total triangles adds up to exactly one square.
Cheers,
DerrickA

P.S. The solution to many apparent paradoxes like this puzzle, mobius strips, klein bottles, Escher drawings, etc. lie in subtle dimensional shifts not easily noticable to the casual observer.  This fact can be used both for and against the case of free energy.



sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #774 on: September 15, 2007, 05:09:05 AM »
Gravity Wheel:

The ratio of the Outer diameter of the Inner wheel (where the ball falls into the upward scoop)
should be at 1:2 to the Inner diameter of the Outer wheel (where the balls descend).
The number of balls is not very important, so long as they are spaced radially-symmetrical, so that the same number of balls fall, as are rising.

Important to note is the Mass of the balls. The cummulative mass of 1/2 the number of Descending balls that import gravitational force on the wheel at any moment in time must be sufficient to move the mass of the wheel with no other balls on it.

This is also the ammount of mass that we may pull our excess energy from. (theoretically).
example: 3 descending balls, with a 2 to 1 leverage and 3 ascending balls.
The 3 descending balls impart 6 units of force onto the wheel, 3 (3.00001) units of force are used to lift the 3 ascending balls, leaving us with 3 units of force. If our whel is designed such that it requires 3 units of force to turn it, then we will have a net energy value of 0 and our friend friction will bring it to a stop.

IF  3 units of force are MORE than is required to move the wheel (less wheel mass? better bearings? no load?)
     Then we will have an excess of force imparted on the wheel. - Think this over and let me know what you think.

as i mentioned earlier, the angle of the horizontal planes determines the RPM (multiple balls in the "waiting" position can counter this effect), and you want the Drop Point on the ascending side to be as high as you can, Top Dead Center would be ideal, but this may cause a problem in the extra momentum consumed in bringing the balls around that much further.  On the same note you want your recieving point on the descending side to be as high as possible. so you have a small range of angles to play with, and moving the horizontal ramps vertically until you find the right position, TIMING is very important, one ball MUST drop into the recieving bucket on the descending side at the SAME TIME as a ball is picked up on the recieving bucket of the ascending side.
ALSO one a ball MUST be dropped off at the drop point on the descending side as the SAME TIME as the ball is being dropped off at the top of the ascending side.  Ideally you would have all 4 balls going onto/off of the ramps at the same time, to reduce wheel instability.

if i can figure out how to post a picture on this thing i can illustrate this, but its basically the design that was posted several times earlier. If the mass of the wheel is considerably less than the mass of 1/2 the number of working balls there will be excess energy - in theory.

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #775 on: September 15, 2007, 05:12:41 AM »
one idea for consistent functionality would be to put two plates of plexi on the outsides of the tracks so the balls dont fall oof, but also you can then slope the buckets, and make holes in the plexi at your "drop points" such that the balls would roll off the buckets onto the inclined plane with ease.

shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #776 on: September 15, 2007, 05:57:17 AM »
Gravity Wheel:

The ratio of the Outer diameter of the Inner wheel (where the ball falls into the upward scoop)
should be at 1:2 to the Inner diameter of the Outer wheel (where the balls descend).
The number of balls is not very important, so long as they are spaced radially-symmetrical, so that the same number of balls fall, as are rising.

Important to note is the Mass of the balls. The cummulative mass of 1/2 the number of Descending balls that import gravitational force on the wheel at any moment in time must be sufficient to move the mass of the wheel with no other balls on it.

This is also the ammount of mass that we may pull our excess energy from. (theoretically).
example: 3 descending balls, with a 2 to 1 leverage and 3 ascending balls.
The 3 descending balls impart 6 units of force onto the wheel, 3 (3.00001) units of force are used to lift the 3 ascending balls, leaving us with 3 units of force. If our whel is designed such that it requires 3 units of force to turn it, then we will have a net energy value of 0 and our friend friction will bring it to a stop.

IF  3 units of force are MORE than is required to move the wheel (less wheel mass? better bearings? no load?)
     Then we will have an excess of force imparted on the wheel. - Think this over and let me know what you think.

as i mentioned earlier, the angle of the horizontal planes determines the RPM (multiple balls in the "waiting" position can counter this effect), and you want the Drop Point on the ascending side to be as high as you can, Top Dead Center would be ideal, but this may cause a problem in the extra momentum consumed in bringing the balls around that much further.  On the same note you want your recieving point on the descending side to be as high as possible. so you have a small range of angles to play with, and moving the horizontal ramps vertically until you find the right position, TIMING is very important, one ball MUST drop into the recieving bucket on the descending side at the SAME TIME as a ball is picked up on the recieving bucket of the ascending side.
ALSO one a ball MUST be dropped off at the drop point on the descending side as the SAME TIME as the ball is being dropped off at the top of the ascending side.  Ideally you would have all 4 balls going onto/off of the ramps at the same time, to reduce wheel instability.

if i can figure out how to post a picture on this thing i can illustrate this, but its basically the design that was posted several times earlier. If the mass of the wheel is considerably less than the mass of 1/2 the number of working balls there will be excess energy - in theory.


I think you went off track somewhere.  You are focusing way too much on the mass of the wheel and not enough on the mass of the balls.  The wheel's mass is not that important.  It will accelerate slower, but it will still move no matter how massive it is, assuming low friction (bearings, etc.).  Your mistake is forgetting that there are twice as many balls on the left as the right.

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #777 on: September 15, 2007, 06:11:26 AM »
""Your mistake is forgetting that there are twice as many balls on the left as the right.""


This cannot occur. If there are more balls rising than falling, the system will not perpetuate. they have to rise and fall at the same rate or you will run out of balls on one end or the other. (usually up top)

if you meant twice as many balls worth of force - then yes this is true, however there is a limitation with the wheels mass, and the balls not being able to overcome the forces stopping the wheel. The wheel does not want to spin on its own, and there is a limitation to how small a force can be and actually cause the wheel to move.
this is where the mass of the balls come into play. also the rate at which the wheel moves is effected by the balls mass (and proportional to the mass of the wheel).


shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #778 on: September 15, 2007, 06:42:39 AM »
This cannot occur. If there are more balls rising than falling, the system will not perpetuate. they have to rise and fall at the same rate or you will run out of balls on one end or the other. (usually up top)

You are right about the system not perpetuating.  There are more balls on the left than on the right because they rise twice as slowly on the left side, so they have to be denser in order to keep pace with the balls on the right.  Just look at the drawings and you will see what I am talking about.

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #779 on: September 15, 2007, 07:10:21 AM »
This cannot occur. If there are more balls rising than falling, the system will not perpetuate. they have to rise and fall at the same rate or you will run out of balls on one end or the other. (usually up top)

You are right about the system not perpetuating.  There are more balls on the left than on the right because they rise twice as slowly on the left side, so they have to be denser in order to keep pace with the balls on the right.  Just look at the drawings and you will see what I am talking about.

IF there are not the same number of balls rising and falling then your horizontal ramps and/or drop points are off.
The outer balls DO move faster, but they also cover a longer distance with is proportional to the ratio between the two wheels. The balls should all be identicle. If you follow the axial-path as the wheel turns you will see that the balls move in unison.