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 721670 times)

RoadRunner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #780 on: September 15, 2007, 07:52:44 AM »
Hi,
I've been reading lurking for a short while, reading about Mike's capacitor driven bedini motor and Chas Cambell's wheel (bless that guy, he's a star).
However, I am horrified at the willful ignorance and downright stupidity displayed in this forum.
I'm not a skeptic. I believe that there are 'free energy' systems to be found and harnessed. Haven't we already succeeded in such with hydroelectric power ? Clean, safe, renewable. More energy out than it takes to maintain. People like Chas, Bedini, Naudin and others may well stumble upon something that takes humanity to a new level in respect of our use of natural resources.
Having said that, I think we need the skeptics. I try to remain skeptical and impartial when evaluating a system. It's all too easy to look for the results you want to see...
Humbugger may not be the most tactful of posters, but he's withstood post after post of insults and snide comments from certain members of this forum, without stooping to their level and indulging in a tirade of insults and abuse.
He tried time and again to patiently explain to Stephan why Chas Cambell's wheel wouldn't work and Stephan repeatedly missed the point and asked for torque calculations for a system despite having been shown umpteen times that no matter what the torque calculations showed for any given moment in the cycle, overall, the system would fail. I can understand why he was getting frustrated... I was getting frustrated reading it !!! Despite his frustration, he remained reasonably calm and collected. He was attacked at every opportunity by Ash and eventually banned... for being patient ??? Hmmmmm...... Isn't an internet forum a great place ??? One can silence the critics by pressing the 'ban' button instead of using reason...! Well, if you ain't got the facts to support your position, you've always got the 'ban' button, eh Stephan ?

As for Zero.
Heck, boy... You've been told a number of times that you need to brush up on your physics and that you don't know what you are talking about...
It's because of your willful ignorance and constant straw-man arguments that I signed up to this board...
You think you've got some superior secret knowledge because you think you know how to perform a one-inch punch ???? You know zip !!!!
Here's an experiment for you and don't even bother to respond to me until you've gone away and performed it because otherwise I shall just point out that you are being willfully ignorant once more.
I don't want to hear more straw-man arguments about teeters and kegs of beer...
There's a BIG difference between dropping something and letting it roll down a slope and this is where you are setting up straw-men.
Take a set of scales - The sort that you might find in your bathroom.
Take a large heavy weight that will roll. Weigh it. Write that weight down.
Now, take something that you can place on your scales which will give you a slope, down which you are going to roll your weight. Tare the scales so that they display 0.0 once more (thereby eliminating the weight of your ramp from the equation).
Now, this ramp represents Chas Campbell's tubes... The ones the balls roll down and go SMACK when they hit the end...
Right now, I'm not interested in that smack... We know that it imparts energy, that's not in dispute, the Newton's Cradle is working proof of that. What I am going to demonstrate to you is from where it gets that extra energy and hopefully you'll see why those who know what they are talking about are telling you that you don't. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Zero... They're right.

Place your weight on the ramp on your scales and allow it to roll down the ramp, falling off the end and off the scales.
Did it show the same weight as when it was sitting still ?? No. Why ?
Gravity will pull the weight downwards but, the ramp translates some of that downward force into lateral force. The weight is pushed sideways. Therefore, when being displaced by the ramp, the weight registers less on the scales.
This has nothing to do with riding up and down a train carriage on a trolley being pushed by someone else... That's just another straw-man argument. The big difference between your straw-man and the genuine case is that in your scenario, the trolley and train are on the level and the trolley is being pushed or pulled. If your train was heading downhilll and the guy was riding on the trolley, being pulled downhill by gravity, then he would apparently weigh less if he were also riding a set of scales on that trolley... This is because the support (the train), is falling away from him... NASA use the science behind this phenomenon to create what we know as the vomit-comet. The plane falls away from the passengers at the same rate that they fall to Earth, thereby simulating the conditions found in orbit. Freefall.
Chas' tubes and his pool-balls aren't in freefall, of course, but the rotation of the wheel (in effect, the tube falling away toward ground) and the slope of the tube (again, falling away toward ground) lessen the effect of the ball on the wheel.
In other words. A ball rolling down a tube on a wheel will not impart as much force due to gravity as a ball sitting in a cup at the end...
So, the energy required to displace the ball laterally has been robbed from the system. If that ball were sitting still in a cup on the edge of the wheel, it would be placing all its weight there for the entire arc. The ball isn't placing all its weight at the edge of the wheel because the sloping tube is preventing that from happening.

I could be totally wrong about all this. I'm not a qualified engineer but when I see qualified engineers and physics professors telling a kid he's wrong and that kid keeps arguing and demonstrating the vast chasm between his ego and his knowledge it makes me wonder about the meaning of the name 'Zero'.. Does it refer to your IQ, your amount of common-sense, your knowledge of the world around you, your attention-span, your ability to comprehend simple explanations or your willingness to learn and understand ?

Stephan, after seeing how you moderate this forum, allowing it to be a circus of abuse and ignorance, banning those who try to remain patient in the face of idiocy and insults and permitting snake-oil salesmen and dumb kids to post unhindered and unchallenged, I think I've seen enough.

I was thinking of joining up and sharing my experiences (my SSG is sitting next to me running, right now) but this thread has quite put me off.

My respect and admiration to those who patiently and carefully take the time to explain, to those who diligently try to replicate and also to those who take the trouble to understand, you are this forum's only saving grace.

People like Zero, Ash and the other snake-oil sellers... Well... You guys are ten-a-penny.

The RoadRunner..

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #781 on: September 15, 2007, 08:17:46 AM »
Here is a simple experiment to prove this concept::

Start with a Lever, fulcrum placed at a 2:1 ratio

a bucket on each end to hold the balls.

now incorporate a mechanism to dump the buckets (or otherwise release the ball) into a bowl.
1 bowl is at the top of the short end, other bown is at the bottom of the long end.

Now - To begin the test, place a ball in each bucket and align the lever so that the long end is all the way up, then release. 
You will find that the lever will move and their balls will be in their respective buckets.

attaching several of these levers around the axis of the wheel is just a step away.

shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #782 on: September 15, 2007, 08:35:15 AM »
Here is a simple experiment to prove this concept::

Start with a Lever, fulcrum placed at a 2:1 ratio

a bucket on each end to hold the balls.

now incorporate a mechanism to dump the buckets (or otherwise release the ball) into a bowl.
1 bowl is at the top of the short end, other bown is at the bottom of the long end.

Now - To begin the test, place a ball in each bucket and align the lever so that the long end is all the way up, then release. 
You will find that the lever will move and their balls will be in their respective buckets.

attaching several of these levers around the axis of the wheel is just a step away.

I cannot tell if you are pulling my leg.  You realize that the lever only lifts the ball halfway up the height of the long side?  This means there is no way to get a ball from the bowl on top of the short side to the bucket on top of the long side.

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #783 on: September 15, 2007, 08:43:10 AM »
EXACTLY!  Which is why the placement of the ramps is so important.

there is a range outside of which you either have too little dropping distance to impart the necessary force on the wheel, or your ramps are not steep enough to deliver the balls horizontally to the other side.

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #784 on: September 15, 2007, 10:03:39 AM »
"I could be totally wrong about all this. I'm not a qualified engineer but when I see qualified engineers and physics professors telling a kid he's wrong"

  First off,  I do not recall Hum telling me I was wrong on what I was saying.  In fact, others
were not understanding what I was referring to, and mixing things up.

 Also, I do not have to believe that Hum was an engineer.  And or if he was, whats to say
that he was not being intentionally misleading...


 I understand that the weight will be less when its moving down the Tube.. however,
because of the very short time its traveling the tube.. the partial gravity loss
is fractional and not a concern at all.    And, the energy output at the end,
which others at first were not understanding... and overlooking... IS
a factor in power that needs to be accounted for. (and was not!, and still has not!)

 Also, your vomit comet plays no role in the discussion because the wheel is
rotating too slow to reduce the impact forces much at all.   And or even
the gravity pull of the balls.   If the wheel were really cranking, then Id
agree.. but thats not the case at all.

 And finally, Id be willing to bet that you are Hum, under a new account.


 Nope, I do not know everything... not even close.  Nor do I fully claim that
the wheel works (with tweaks fixed).   But, I do know that there was
something being overlooked - and to this post, nobody has calculated it
yet.   And or if they do, will probably fudge the values.

 The reality of it all is, that just like any of these posts, there will always
be the so called skeptic who has invested interest in derailing attempts
at free energy at the source.   

 Its far better to let others fail on their own, and over time possibly find
a working solution... than to accept a strangers math...  or harsh
beatings on a message board.   

 Such bad attitudes Never will produce anything but negativity.

 

shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #785 on: September 15, 2007, 10:48:33 AM »
I understand that the weight will be less when its moving down the Tube..

If you do understand that, it is a new realization.  You were swearing that the ball rolling down the ramp inside the wheel still imparts its full downward force to the wheel during the roll.  Here is what you said:

Quote
When the ball rolls on his down-slanted PVC "intake" pipes, Gravity is still pulling it down
with the same force.   But additionally, when the ball hits the waiting spot - it imparts
the balls extra energy to the wheel. 

What you still do not understand, however, is how irrelevant the calculation of the impact force is.  Instead of calculating that, we are assuming the ball is teleported into the receptacle cup in the outer wheel as soon as it leaves the top of the inner wheel.  If you cannot understand that having the ball in the wheel receptacle earlier (and therefore higher) is equal to waiting on the ball to roll down the ramp inside the wheel and then impact the receptacle a second or whatever later, then you do not understand some basic laws regarding potential and kinetic energy.  You are not doing anyone a service by urging them to make these pointless calculations, and by pointing this out, hopefully I am saving someone the needless effort.  This is why skeptics like Hum are useful - they can save people alot of time.


zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #786 on: September 15, 2007, 11:04:25 AM »
Yes, it is a new realization.  I am open to learning.  Just not open to bashings
and people launching false claims and neglect of  factual data.   As well
as overly negative and nonconstructive and deconstructive commentary.

 The ball being in the wheel immediately has fractional value over its
time in the slide.   Yet the energy created from the slide will impart
significantly much more energy.
 
 You have not proven to me that its the other way around.  Nor will you,
because its not true.

 

sevich

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #787 on: September 15, 2007, 11:54:49 AM »
Place your weight on the ramp on your scales and allow it to roll down the ramp, falling off the end and off the scales.
Did it show the same weight as when it was sitting still ?? No. Why ?
Gravity will pull the weight downwards but, the ramp translates some of that downward force into lateral force. The weight is pushed sideways. Therefore, when being displaced by the ramp, the weight registers less on the scales.
The RoadRunner..

Same can be said of an "hour glass" which weighs less when active! .....mmmm, if sand was substituted for ball bearings and ........

PS............it's a pitty Hum was banned :o...........I  enjoyed reading his posts although colourful at times but nevertheles interesting and very humorous   :D


« Last Edit: September 15, 2007, 12:25:28 PM by sevich »

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #788 on: September 15, 2007, 12:24:29 PM »
Im not expert in math and physics...  however, lets assume some fake
numbers here:


 Shown here is a representation of 2 versions of the wheel.   

A) Green ball which is gently rolled into place
B) Blue ball which is thrust at a 45 degree angle downwards

- Each place where the balls are represent 1 second of time
(not realistic, but good enough for the point)

- On the right, there is a scale that approximates the weight energy output
 
-----

 Now, right off the bat, the BLUE ball dives at a slant.  It loses a theoretical
1/4 its original weight energy durring that 1second of time.     

 However.. its acceleration during that time, theoretically multiplies the weight
by a factor of two.   

 (An example of this would be a Bowling ball handed to you -vs- tossed at you.   The
weight energy is multiplied)

 These figures may be higher or lower.   But, with heavier weights, its possible that
the output forces on the blue side will be even more significant.


 The Green balls energy always stays constant.

 ---

 At the end, the Blue ball gains energy over the green... even with the
losses.   Sure, it may not be by much... but, it may be enough to
keep the wheel overbalenced and overcome any losses.

 Is this what will happen?   Are the figures correct?   

 I dont know.   But... I do know that it is a factor that
must be token into account. 

helmut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 723
    • in construction
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #789 on: September 15, 2007, 02:52:43 PM »
I dont know the right Statement about Humb.

But i know,how it feels:  if  your Horizon is taken by someone,
or if someone directs via my imperfect work.

Or like it feels, if you want to build a tree house for your child and it comes one and says: The tree is too small.
I point, how it is, if one plans a Adveture journey, and more skeptiker wants to convince one, does not in addition-drive, because terrorists are to live there.
Or it comes one and wants to say itself, which one cannot do sail backwards with a sailing boat  .

This forum lives because of the prospect on the impossible.
Who knows the formulas, should use them constructionally, and be ready to rewrite them the other day.
The way to the free energy is long and cumbersome. The caravan will achieve its goal only if it remains in motion.
 If the most perfekt engineer drives the slowest car, then the Others must be allowed to overhaul him also.

Humbugger does have my respekt
And Steffans job an the Forum  might be harder as we can imagine.

helmut

tropes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
    • The Owl Nest
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #790 on: September 15, 2007, 04:50:23 PM »
Okay Stefan, you made your point; YOU ARE THE BOSS. Now you can take the gag off Humbugger. I'm sure he will be better behaved!!!
Peter

RoadRunner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #791 on: September 15, 2007, 06:25:02 PM »
You didn't bother doing the experiment before you replied did you, Zero ???
Instead, you attacked my reasoning, maintaining willful ignorance.

People like you will NEVER find the keys to clean energy because you don't try the experiments, you'd rather argue your position despite others who know better telling you that you are wrong.
This is why people like Chas Campbell and Bedini, although they have FAILED to demonstrate unlimited, clean, free energy, have more chance of finding the keys than do you.
Yes, I know that there are Bedini disciples who will jump up and down claiming that he's got motors running which make free energy... How many other people have managed to replicate the work of Bedini and produce unlimited energy ? Very efficient motors, yes. Free energy on tap, no. What happens when people ask Bedini how to do it ?? He says that all the answers are there, build it as he says and it works. I'm sure that many people who've tried the replication, will agree that it doesn't simply work. There's a lot more to it than just making the circuit and the coils as he suggests. My own SSG is running on a bike-wheel, drawing about 125ma from a 12v or 9v supply and charging a 400v/220uF cap up to 310v quite quickly. I've had NO success in 'energising' a battery though... Yet !
Do I do as you do and start claiming, 'this doesn't work' without doing the experiments ?
No. My own SSG spins as I write and the only thing holding up development and further testing at the moment is the fact that my scope is away for repair/recalibration.

If you cannot find a ramp and a weight for your scales, take your scales into an elevator and watch your own weight as you ride up and down. What you lose on the way down, you gain at the bottom. There is NO GAIN at the bottom WITHOUT the loss on the way down and this is what everyone keeps trying to tell you. That you don't GAIN from having the balls hit the ends of their tubes. You only hold off some of that energy for a short period of time then deliver it in a quick peak. There is NO NET GAIN... Of course, I expect that you will simply continue to make up straw-men and knock them down claiming that you've destroyed my arguments and you were right all along, without doing any experimentation.

Secondly, your suggestion that I am Humbugger demonstrates your level of thinking.
Irrational claims without evidence.

You said you'd be willing to bet that I am Humbugger using a new account.
I'll take that bet. Stefan knows I'm not Humbugger (he can check my IP which will show that I am using my ISP and not a proxy) and I can very quickly and easily give you two or three words to type into Google which will tell you who I am and if you're still not convinced, you can then have my private phone number so that you can call me up to verify that I am who I say I am...

So... Put your money where your mouth is, boy.
You're not prepared to put a weight on a ramp on a set of scales so let's see you continue to claim that I am Humbugger.... I'll take your bet. What are you prepared to lose ?
Your willful ignorance, perhaps ?
You've publicly declared, in writing, that you are willing to bet that I am Humbugger.
I have officially, publicly, in writing accepted your bet.
So what's your stake ? Or shall I set the stakes ?

Stefan may have had trouble in grasping the point that Humbugger and one or two others were trying to make, but he has my respect because his approach is entirely different to the one you take.
You state, "I am right, you are wrong."
Stefan says, "I don't understand why I am wrong. Show me."

Do you see the difference ? Do you see why Stefan has the right attitude to learn and understand whereas you are just willfully ignorant ?
One is the attitude of a mature adult mind.
The other is the attitude of a headstrong kid.
No prizes for guessing in which category you fall.

The RoadRunner..

rMuD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #792 on: September 15, 2007, 06:39:39 PM »
""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).



it's all based on the angles of the buckets..  if you look at my drawings early on, you will see that at 2:1 scale ration there is average around 2 and for a instant 3 balls on the downside giving force on 60 degrees of spin, that is pusing 5-6 balls up 180 degrees

as the wheel gets bigger, because the lift distance is static, the angle decreases as you scale it up, and at 3.87x bigger that a maximum of 1 ball to push will be on the wheel 100% of the time...

next imbalance to make it a closed system:  you have to maintain the 30 degrees in this case for the it all to equal out, chas wheel is doing less than 60 degrees becase there is a slope to roll the ball from inner to outer and vise versa.  this is irrevelent because it does not exceed a net of 30 degrees of movement, if you did something line 2 balls on the outer where every 3rd ball for example you would have a imbalance that would screw it up

changing the bucket spacing:  the # of buckets has to be divisable by 360 for a "Balanced" wheel..  if that's the goal

dropping balls:  dropping balls has no net gain, but a loss... you lose energy on the impact by the bucket absorbing some of the energy in the collision due to it's inability to accelerate instantly.  I think I read F = cos(Theta) * G down on the bucket and the force sideways is sin of that
(Gravitation energy is split between vertical and horizontal) (that formula is a guess) I didn't confirm or look it up


In all of this, Humbug me and few others were talking of what's been known for 500 years... and trying to explain, and I though doing well at first it got off topic.. but I gaurentee with a basic setup here..  the law of the conservation of energy is not going to be proven wrong with any of these basic gravity wheels.

I really hope a few more, and I personally feel I learned alot from this discussion....

I'm staying out of this until the results come in

RoadRunner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #793 on: September 15, 2007, 07:29:29 PM »
In all of this, Humbug me and few others were talking of what's been known for 500 years... and trying to explain, and I though doing well at first it got off topic.. but I gaurentee with a basic setup here..  the law of the conservation of energy is not going to be proven wrong with any of these basic gravity wheels.

I really hope a few more, and I personally feel I learned alot from this discussion....

rMud, the efforts that you, Hum and a couple of others have put into this discussion have, indeed, helped me to understand why the basic gravity wheel fails to deliver constant rotation under its own power.

I thank you all for that.

 I couldn't figure it in my own head because doing the 'thought experiment' leads to a conclusion which is incorrect, This is where Zero is failing. He's only thinking about it instead of going and testing his theories... His other mistake is his constant use of straw-men, ignoring the fact that throwing bowling balls, dropping kegs of beer etc is completely different from allowing them to roll down a slope. If I toss you a bowling ball, you don't feel it's energy until you catch it. If you are holding a ramp, down which I roll that ball, you feel part of its downward force as soon as it is on the ramp... But ONLY PART, then when it comes to rest at the bottom of the ramp, the part that was 'missing' is now delivered as impact. He's seeing only part of the entire system and isolating it from the rest. He cannot even see how the vomit-comet is an extreme example of the systems to which we refer. Because his own mind is not capable of handling the entire system, he breaks it up into little pieces and concentrates on the one bit which he feels will offer vindication. The other alternative, is that he is a deliberate liar, I'm offering him the benefit of the doubt at the moment and accepting the possibility that he's just not managed to grasp the issue... and until he stops trying to validate his arguments with straw-men and actually gets of his butt to do some experiments as suggested, he's never going to see the light. But a deliberate liar, or willfully ignorant, the results are much the same. Zero, get yourself a copy of something like WM2D and try setting up your experiments in that if you don't have a set of bathroom scales... Roll balls down ramps and see how the ramp translates downward forces into sideways forces. Sideways force doesn't move the wheel, only downward forces will do that. Robbing the wheel of the weight of each ball and then imparting that energy with impact has NO NET GAIN and experimentation will PROVE this to you.
Stop trying to argue your case with analogies which don't model the entire system, just do the flippin' experiment which models the entire system (a ball travelling down a ramp and hitting a stop at the end) and you will see for yourself that we DO know what we are talking about.
Then you owe Hum, rMuD and the others an apology. Be a mature adult and actually try it, learn, understand and then admit your previous misunderstanding... Anything else is immature folly and deliberate ignorance.

The RoadRunner..

gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #794 on: September 15, 2007, 07:47:56 PM »

In my head Chas second device ended up a 1000 KG concrete flywheel cast in a ditch with it's axle fixed onto a generator. Then use the slippery belt stuffs to make it go. You can drive your car on top and give it a good whirl. You think your little coffee maker is going to stop that mass?

I'm not going to do the math. *grin*

I already know concrete is cheaper as batteries. I'm not fooled  :D

oh they are much heavier than that.. we wanted to put a  600KVA unit in the basement of the building, the elevators couldn't handle the discs individually that made up the 3 meter tall stack of them, we were going to have to dig a hole and cut a hole in the side of the building to put them in.. decided to scrap the project.

Concrete my god that would be a nightmare to balance..  1000KG

Good problem thinking,

Just make it float with it's axle at the height of the bearings.

Bit of wax etc

You can also make 2 of 500 kg on the same axle.

4 of 250 kg etc :-)

Doesn't sound undoable?

Can we fix the generator straight on the axle?

these are already manufactured by 10-20 different companies, and are wide spread used around the world..  generations of experience out there making these

What do you mean? "already", there are millions of ways to build a flywheel.  Already can mean 10-20 things in this post???

Do you have a link to a floating flywheel manufacturer for me?

I cant seem to find any.