The Theory behind the Chas Campbell  device.

Congratulation to Chas Campbell on the successful demonstration of his device.  Thank you to Ash and others in confirming and promoting it.  Some may still question the Source of Energy of his device.  Some may still try to raise the CoE Roadblock.  We can apply the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory to explain the source of energy of the Chas Campbell Device.  It used Pulsed Rotation to Lead Out gravitational energy.   The efficiency of the device will depend on:
(1)   Rotational speed
(2)   Number of Pulse Points
(3)   Mass of the Flywheel (Cylinder is better)
(4)   Radius of the Flywheel or Cylinder
(5)   The feedback mechanism (Pulse at the right frequency)
(6)   Angle of tilt (Output power decreases if axle tilted from horizontal and becomes zero when vertical.)

Tsing Hua University in China worked with an old Chinese Inventor and had a video taken on January 4, 1996.  That invention could magnify Input Electricity 30 times and had been used in a factory environment for over 11 years.  The following information may be helpful.

Explanation of the Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier Video
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg46560.html#msg46560

The video edited by Ms. Forever Yuen
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg46108.html#msg46108

Accompanied text from Forever:

I have also uploaded the electrical energy magnifier from TsingHua University. 

http://rapidshare.com/files/51563146/tsinghua7846-8069.mpg.html

1. The video was done on 4 January 1996.

2. The electrical input was magnified 30 times.

3. The input energy was A.C. power from the local power company. The power was fed to a starting motor. The starting motor is then connected via a belt arrangement to the energy magnifier.

4. The energy magnifier consisted of three cylinders.(The Chas Campbell Device from Australia used three wheels.)

5.The output energy was used to support the entire factory.

6.No output energy was fed back to input as that mechanism had not been perfected.

Lawrence Tseung
Success of the Chas Campbell Device Leads Out the confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory one more time.

"I just talked a few minutes to Ash on his mobile phone,
but the connection was very bad from Australia to Germany,
but what I understood was this:

He just was at Chas?s place and measured the input to the 800 Watts
drive motor
to be about 6 Amps and
the output of the alternator was about 10 amps.
(probably at the same voltage)

But I did not fully understand, how long they did run it this way
and he talked something about pulsing the output or input.
He said, they did run it with a hacksaw as the load and another
load thing I did not understand what it was..."

So far, unless I have missed something, this is the only report about any test results on the Charles Campbell motor. It is a second-hand report taken over a garbled cell phone. The only thing apparent from this report is that all the discussion and plans regarding proper measurement technique were just tossed out.  I am waiting for some clarification of the methods and measurement results before reaching any conclusions one way or the other, but the report here is not at all promising in that regard.

It seems, however, to others, this preliminary report from Stefan, complete with at least one huge and well-noted assumption "(probably at the same voltage)" and including no information regarding the real power output or the resistive/reactive qualities of the loads used or the duration of the tests or anything else having to do with the actual energy efficiency, this report alone is considered sufficient to draw the most certain and optimistic and earth-shattering conclusions!

"Congratulation to Chas Campbell on the successful demonstration of his device.  Thank you to Ash and others in confirming and promoting it."  L. Tseung

"Success of the Chas Campbell Device Leads Out the confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory one more time."   L. Tseung

"Well, so from your explanation Chas' machine does achieve 166% efficiency when putting in 800W."  Iosh

And finally...from Mr. Tseung again...from his last post in his own thread...

"Chas Campbell Leads Out the first conclusive OU demonstration supported by the overunity forum members."

All I am asking for here is that test results and measurements be gathered and analyzed using reasonable levels of scientific technique before any startling conclusions are drawn.   So far, the reported data and speculation in no way justify any of these conclusions.  Is that not clear to all?  Are there any truly scientific researchers here?

It is getting very hard for me to believe that there is a genuine interest in doing any real science; in finding out what really works and what doesn't.  It seems more and more that any untested or clearly mis-tested OU assertion whatsoever is automatically believed and then regurgitated as fact for the purpose of "promoting free energy". 

I'm all for a good free energy invention, but only if it actually works!  Otherwise, it won't be useful to anyone but those making their livings as "promoters", now will it?

Can we at least try to hold off on the incredible conclusions until we receive some actual test results and some idea of the test conditions used?  When I see how rapidly and prematurely certain people leap to enormous and certain conclusions based on unclear and incomplete information, it gives me much reason to doubt the soundness of all their other conclusions and the accuracy of their reports in general!  Does it not effect you that way as well?   Let's at least try to use a little bit of scientific method!

Humbugger

Sorry, Iosh, if I seemed to exaggerate your conclusions.  I take it you agree then?  No conclusions can be scientifically made until all assumptions are clarified and errors eliminated?  And they have not yet even been presented, much less scrutinized.  Am I wrong?

Even if the big assumption of equal input and output voltages is true, and if we accept a 6A input current and 10A "output current" measurement, there cannot be any conclusion of overunity without considering the load phase angle and the pulsed/vs/steady-state operation duty cycle.  You can read all the reasons for this right here in this thread. 

That is why even your basic conclusion statement: "Well, so from your explanation Chas' machine does achieve 166% efficiency when putting in 800W." is not logical; it does not follow.  166% efficiency could only be concluded if we knew several more facts than are presented (even as assumptions) in Stefan's report.  That's why I included yours in my list of premature and unscientific conclusions.

Humbugger

I just tried to reach Ash again,
but he was not at home and his mobile phone is only
on answering machine mode.

He told me yeasterday, that they did take full videos
of all the things they saw and that he will soon post an indeepth
report about all of it with videos etc...
So I guess stay tuned and don?t
try to make conclusion up yet, until he will come again to over here
and report fully what he saw.

Regards, Stefan.

I totally agree and thank you for making your position very clear that you, also, are taking a scientific approach and awating the complete data prior to making any conclusions regarding success or failure to demonstrate OU.  I am very interested to see and hear what Charles and Ashtweth have to report.

Humbugger

Okay, I just now spoke again with Ash on his mobile phone
and now the connection was much better.

He told me, that the big like Bessler wheel and the multiple
flywheel device are 2 different devices.
In the last video posted they were only hooked together just for a show.

But when the Bessler like wheel should run on its own, it does
not yet now, as it was built from too cheap parts, so this
oscillates too much and gets to a stop.
But Chas has disclosed all details to Ash and Andrew from
panacea-bocaf.org and they also have it all on video.

Chas also wants us to replicate his Bessler like wheel, so
we can try to get it to run with better parts.

Now to the device which was first in the Australian TV news,
his multiple flywheel system.

Ash said, it is powered by a crappy 240 Volts AC drive motor, which already draws
about 200 Watts of input power, when nothing is connected to this motor,
so this drive motor already has huge losses itsself and is not very efficient.
Now this drive motor powers this chain of flywheels via gears or pullies
and then at the end of the chain a 240 Volts AC inverter is hooked up.
Now when the drive motor has to power all the flywheels and the alternator
it has an input current of about 6 amps, which means the input power
is about 1440 Watts . (Power factor cos phi not calculated in...)
When Ash connected 2 x 500 Watts halogen bulbs this drove the flywheel
setup down in RPM and the system became unstable, so they
were only able to do this for about 10 seconds.
This seemed to be too much load on the alternator...

Then they used for instance a hacksaw and some drill as the load
on the alternator, which of course have motors in them
which drew more input current at the start and they did this like
3 seconds on and 3 seconds off, so the duty cycle was about 50 : 50.
At this intervalling they could draw 10 amps pulses for 3 seconds from the alternator,
which did not bog down the alternator...and the drive motor stayed always at
6 amps at 240 Volts input.

But this is calculated in with the duty cycle 50:50 also only:
240 Volts x 10 amps= 2400 Watts / 2 = 1200 Watts of output power..
So the input power is still more than the output power...

But Ash said, Chas did disclose all the gear ratios and
setup things, so nothing was hidden and they were very thankful to him.

Also they have a new apointment to test this system with their own
RV motor setup as the drive motor and then they will really see,
how good this system works...

So when this crappy drive motor is still used, nothing can be
said in this moment conclusively...

Also we should wait until we will see the video they are just editing
and putting together now.

Ash said this Bessler wheel thing looks very amazing and
convincing and we should really wait, until we see his video !

So I have to thank Ash and Chas again for the openess and
giving full disclosure.

Regards, Stefan.

Thanks a lot to Chas and Ash! Wait for the reports! In my opinion, both systems belong together. The flywheels alone are NOT overunity in any kind. And the bessler-wheel alone will not turn continously without the flywheels, because the weight has to be kept in unbalanced state throu storaged and wired-back energy. Has nothing to do with bad quality parts. It runs only together. Maybe it is not easy for Chas to give away his baby in a very first demonstration.

Hi Stefan
That sounds  very promising

Thanks to Chas and Ashtweth.

Chas also wants us to replicate his Bessler like wheel, so
we can try to get it to run with better parts.

The Day will come,that we start with Replications.We will learn from it ,and
we will be able to improove something as possible.

helmut



At least they are healthy.