Author Topic: Chas Campbell free power motor (Read 724946 times)

wattsup · « **Reply #270 on:** September 04, 2007, 05:43:29 AM »

@Hum

It's obvoius this wheel will not turn on its own but what Prophmaji is showing is a good assessement of the actual problem in such wheels. If the wheel is brought to its best action, the problem will be concentrated in two points. Surmount these two points and you're even closer.

@Prophmaji

Look at my wheel which I am changing soon for plastic 1" and 1" ball bearings.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3070.msg45101.html#msg45101

Try cutting the tubes shorter and place them more on a horizontal plane at 12 o'clock to the right and at 6 o"clock to the left, like in my wheel.

I am only missing now the actual ball bearing inertia to act on the wheel, but my aluminium wheel is to heavy for the shifting mass. So with a new plastic wheel it will weight 1/3 and will use 1" ball instead of the 3/4" balls I am using now.

Also, if you are serious about wheels, you must put 100% to the overall balance of the wheel itself without the weights. This is critical or you are doomed to failure from the start.

wattsup

Prophmaji · « **Reply #271 on:** September 04, 2007, 05:54:19 AM »

Quote

hi,
so does it work on its own? please show us blueprint.

thanks

oh and welcome to overunity.com

peace

It does not spin on it's own. But I can see the reasons why and the person who replied before me, concerning the issues at hand, has seemingly assessed them correctly.

Everything that needs to be shown or spoken about, or explained, is in the post and the photo. Nothing remains to be done. Chas's big wheel shows the properly working, properly made version of what you see attched to my bicycle wheel. He seems to have the addition of some sort of mass or a cover for his billiard balls that might represent an additional offset mass/lever system.

In the photo I supplied, you see the raw mechanics itself. Except, a working one would use steel balls and eight perfectly mirrored and positioned tubes, not the 9 in the photo. Use 10 tubes. Or 12, but always mirrored and exact. Once you see what that does (the horizontal shift point of the masses), you will begin to see other ways of achieving the same trick.

I was also using a 100th of a gram accuracy scale for the weighing of all attached components. Except for the electrical tape. The whole exersize, for me, was to check the validity of the entire idea and process. I am satisfied that it is a good direction and it is very likely to achieve success. The basic science is sound.

As for a lighter wheel and letting the inertia component be the bearing balls for the larger part...that makes sense. When I added more water, the inertia really slowed things down. Less water worked better, also due to the location of the center of the water's mass with respect to both sides of the fulcrum, and the lever action. Which is why the ball bearing is the better idea. In the intial version with 8 perfectly spaced (but not perfectly enough!) tubes, I had them further out and more horizontal (offset), as you suggest. It felt more agressive, in terms of it's willingness to rotate. I expect the offset angle that the tubes must be, in relation to the radius of the wheel... to be a 'golden', or known number, one related to many such enedavors. Not just a random number (angle) or position, but likely to be a known 'perfect' number that has been employed for centuries, if not millenia.

I would also sugest, to make sure the weights are to the center on the left and to the outer on the right as soon as is possible to use a flat bottom on your bearing slide area, not curved. You need that left weight tucked in to the center and that right weight out to the edge as soon as possible. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and your aproach is just as sound, as the relative positions of all combatants (steel balls) remain correct, with respect to each opposite.

GraViTaR · « **Reply #272 on:** September 04, 2007, 06:25:16 AM »

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b375/HollywoodTom/4waygw.jpg)

I need a math guy to figure out all the ratios so that everything turns in unison.

Something that must be considered is that "A" contacts "B" on it's outside and "D" on it's inside, so the thickness of "A" has to be factored in.

So if "A"=1, then "D" will be less than 1, obviously, since it is situated within the circumference of "A". Now, this means that "C" must rotate slightly faster than "A" so that it will match the rotation of "D", which must also rotate slightly faster than "A". "B" and "C" are one piece that rotate together on the same axis.

I'm guessing that "C" will be very close to the same size as "A", and that "B" will be very close to the same size as "D".

ashtweth_nihilisti · « **Reply #273 on:** September 04, 2007, 06:53:21 AM »

Hi Guys just posting an addition to the puled out idea of the the Chas system

"Hi Ash,

Switching off the alternator is a bad idea...as the prime motive of this setup is to generate electricity as and when needed (simplest comparison would be you have lots of food but whats the use when you cant get any into your plate when you really want to eat!).

The simplest way is to have Industrial 3 phase capacitors after the generators to maintain the power factor at 1.0, like we do in our factory by placing higher KVA Capacitors near heavy loading machines to be on the safe side. The current draw is high mostly during the initial startup of these machines so capacitors will do the job. Having an additional fly wheel would take care of it partly but you should also take into account that there are quite many flywheels already being powered for the same reason in this setup itself.

Alternately you could have an electrical clutch mechanism setup rigged with a non-rv'd motor to take care of heavy loading and is switched on ONLY during heavy load requirements....this can be automated with an RPM sensor which would automatically switch on the motor to take care of the additional load and would switch off once the load is attained. Then the rv'd motor takes over the torque requirement. This should work up until the rv'd motor torque efficiencies can be improved.

Let me know how this sounds."

Liberty · « **Reply #274 on:** September 04, 2007, 06:53:27 AM »

Quote from: Prophmaji on September 04, 2007, 05:54:19 AM

Quote

hi,
so does it work on its own? please show us blueprint.

thanks

oh and welcome to overunity.com

peace

It does not spin on it's own. But I can see the reasons why and the person who replied before me, concerning the issues at hand, has seemingly assessed them correctly.

Everything that needs to be shown or spoken about, or explained, is in the post and the photo. Nothing remains to be done. Chas's big wheel shows the properly working, properly made version of what you see attched to my bicycle wheel. He seems to have the addition of some sort of mass or a cover for his billiard balls that might represent an additional offset mass/lever system.

In the photo I supplied, you see the raw mechanics itself. Except, a working one would use steel balls and eight perfectly mirrored and positioned tubes, not the 9 in the photo. Use 10 tubes. Or 12, but always mirrored and exact. Once you see what that does (the horizontal shift point of the masses), you will begin to see other ways of achieving the same trick.

I was also using a 100th of a gram accuracy scale for the weighing of all attached components. Except for the electrical tape. The whole exersize, for me, was to check the validity of the entire idea and process. I am satisfied that it is a good direction and it is very likely to achieve success. The basic science is sound.

As for a lighter wheel and letting the inertia component be the bearing balls for the larger part...that makes sense. When I added more water, the inertia really slowed things down. Less water worked better, also due to the location of the center of the water's mass with respect to both sides of the fulcrum, and the lever action. Which is why the ball bearing is the better idea. In the intial version with 8 perfectly spaced (but not perfectly enough!) tubes, I had them further out and more horizontal (offset), as you suggest. It felt more agressive, in terms of it's willingness to rotate. I expect the offset angle that the tubes must be, in relation to the radius of the wheel... to be a 'golden', or known number, one related to many such enedavors. Not just a random number (angle) or position, but likely to be a known 'perfect' number that has been employed for centuries, if not millenia.

I would also sugest, to make sure the weights are to the center on the left and to the outer on the right as soon as is possible to use a flat bottom on your bearing slide area, not curved. You need that left weight tucked in to the center and that right weight out to the edge as soon as possible. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and your aproach is just as sound, as the relative positions of all combatants (steel balls) remain correct, with respect to each opposite.

Do you think that a curved tube would have an advantage over a straight tube? Just thinking about it, seems that the ball would roll back at a lower elevation during the loss cycle??

shruggedatlas · « **Reply #275 on:** September 04, 2007, 07:14:46 AM »

Has anyone considered that Chas's wheel is simply plugged into a wall socket and runs off that? No one has ever been allowed to measure anything as far as input and output - we only have Chas's word for that. And Chas does not appear to be in any hurry to allow full scrutiny.

I also agree with the astute analysis of a previous poster who mentioned the stark discrepancy between the video on the news channel versus the video on Youtube. In the news video, there is no huge gravity wheel, so obviously, it is just a red herring. And if that is not necessary, what makes you think any of the other wheels are?

I personally think you could just get rid of all the wheels, plug a power strip into a wall socket and run your saw and light and fan off that, and you would end up ahead, since you would not have to make the spinny wheels turn.

FreeEnergy · « **Reply #276 on:** September 04, 2007, 07:15:51 AM »

hmm, it's a lot easier to roll a heavy round object horizontally than it is to lift vertically yes?

so what if all tubes are always at a horizontal position as the wheel rotates... then all you have to do is roll the round weight inside the tube to cause leverage advantage. maybe a smot to cause the ball to roll would work. the smot is not going uphill so the sticky spot shouldn't be a problem.

wattsup · « **Reply #277 on:** September 04, 2007, 07:37:11 AM »

@GraViTaR

All that's happening is A and D are turning B and C. But how?

@Prophmaji

The thing is this;

- the more you got to the center on the left side, the less you have height on the right side.

- the more you go right on the right side, the faster it will be transferred to the left side.

There is a very small portion of left to right, right to left and then that small difference has to be overcome by inertia only if the balls are then at the right weight versus mass rotation.

About the curves, if you had two identical incline points, one straight and one curved, the ball on the curved inclined will go from point A to B faster than on the straight incline, even though it has farther to travel. The curves help the ball move right alot sooner.

@Ash

The thing with comparing a 3/4 hp drill motor to an RV is that you are drilling what exactly.

Try drilling with a 3/4" steel bit into a 1" steel bar. The RV will probably never make it half way or if it does, look at the amps and feel how hot it is getting.

Motors are chosen to do a job. For a drill, this can range from drilling 1/16" into pine wood, or drilling 1" into steel. The jobs vary and for such variations, I find RV to be at two set-points only. Out of that and your toast.

It's like saying put a flow restrictor on your shower. Your body still needs the minimal amount of water to properly rinse itself so weather you take 1 minute or 2 minutes, you will still use that amount of water to rinse yourself.

I used to sell electronic triac based power factor correction systems that were originally invented by NASA and licensed to a few USA makers. We'd put them on drills cause it would provide current proportional to real load conditions. At no load your saving and at full load, your spending juice. But you are doing the job.

Here is the point. Ask Chas if the motor he is using now was the motor he started to use in the beginning. If he tells you things like, Oh no, I started with a 1 hp then went down to a 1/2 hp until finally I found this 3/4 hp to work best, then you should leave it alone and just do the OU investigation as is. The guy spent years getting to this point, and that is the point we want to know about.

1430 rpm means more torque compared to the same motor at 2500 rpm.

Right now I am confused by what you are saying because you're mixing both up.

Please, put he RV aside and concentrate on the original Chas system. The one he says WORKS.

When it's time to replicate, you can then do your RV tests to see the advantage, if any.

What we would like to know is watts in/ watts out and how this was measured.

ashtweth_nihilisti · « **Reply #278 on:** September 04, 2007, 07:48:56 AM »

Watts, i have put a thick bit of steal under full load with the RV, ill make a video to show you, it did not buckle, your reasoning is based on you not doing the same experiment, the RV can deliver 3/4 HP more efficiently then any other motor, do the Test yourself, i have done it, id rather you try it FROM WHAT WE LIST IN THE COMPS.

you do not understand the RV like i do and or how it could be used in the Chas system more effectively, or have put it under load by the same configurations we have-ill attempt to show you.

this is why we are having this conversation.

His induction motor some times free wheels with the system, pulsed on and off , or the belt/flywheel takes an occasional load on and off, the RV can handle this more efficiently as its on 3/4 horse power.
The RV doesnt buckle under this, in fact can go over 1HP

The 7.5 HP 60 hertz can deliver 1.8 HP , if your using double coled motors you have the most efficient 1.8 power on demand motor in the world. This i can also show you

We will keep to the original like i said but will also test the RV and compare efficiency under the same conditions, it s as easy as coupling a motor to the drive wheel.

EDIT

the RV also runs cold Watts please read the compilations and review the video
Also stated a zillion times the Torque and HP can be freq driven to improve it

Humbugger · « **Reply #279 on:** September 04, 2007, 08:10:07 AM »

Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 06:53:21 AM

Hi Guys just posting an addition to the puled out idea of the the Chas system

"Hi Ash,

Switching off the alternator is a bad idea...as the prime motive of this setup is to generate electricity as and when needed (simplest comparison would be you have lots of food but whats the use when you cant get any into your plate when you really want to eat!).

The simplest way is to have Industrial 3 phase capacitors after the generators to maintain the power factor at 1.0, like we do in our factory by placing higher KVA Capacitors near heavy loading machines to be on the safe side. The current draw is high mostly during the initial startup of these machines so capacitors will do the job. Having an additional fly wheel would take care of it partly but you should also take into account that there are quite many flywheels already being powered for the same reason in this setup itself.

Alternately you could have an electrical clutch mechanism setup rigged with a non-rv'd motor to take care of heavy loading and is switched on ONLY during heavy load requirements....this can be automated with an RPM sensor which would automatically switch on the motor to take care of the additional load and would switch off once the load is attained. Then the rv'd motor takes over the torque requirement. This should work up until the rv'd motor torque efficiencies can be improved.

Let me know how this sounds."

All of these hocus pocus proposals for different test procedures are bad and would serve only to promote and prolong false beliefs. Anything short of running continuous steady resistive loads and using accurate measurement techniques will lead only to further clouding of the issues and more patently false claims. The idea of using "pulsed loads" or "reactive loads" is just another way to allow and promote totally false energy measurements.

Measuring peak output power levels for short durations on a machine that is being fed continuously and then comparing those numbers to calculate electrical efficiency is just pure crap. Same with loading the device with capacitors, which absorb no energy to speak of...it's all just a bunch of ways to fake good-looking results.

If the machine cannot comfortably produce even a steady ten seconds of 1000W real power output while sucking up a continuous 1440W input, it cannot be reasonably considered as "promising" or any kind of "energy achievement", sad to say.

As much as we might like and respect Charles and his great selfless attitude and colorful showmanship, the truthful unvarnished results of this testing and demonstration session are simply that it failed quite clearly to indicate any excess energy or any promise of such whatsoever.

No one seems the least bit interested in learning why there is such a huge difference between what has been promised and reported for so many years and the bare, sad truth that these brief tests reveal. Look at all the dozens of claims published all over the web, including on this site and on panacea, Ashtweth's site. Free energy! The world's children need this now! Please donate! Come on, man! Now that you have seen for yourself that it isn't true, you should remove the false claims!

It seems that the worse the sad truth is, the thicker the BS and the more convoluted the excuses and jargonistic theories. It's really rather pathetic. What is so hard about being objective, looking at the facts as they are and calling a spade a spade?

The Charles Campbell energy machine does not perform as claimed or as hoped. It does not produce any excess energy. It exhibits normal power and energy losses as entirely predictable by standard textbook analysis. It shows no anomalous or remarkable thermodynamic behaviors. All claims to the contrary were shown to be invalid by a few minutes of simple testing. There! Was that so hard? Let's move on!

Humbugger

ashtweth_nihilisti · « **Reply #280 on:** September 04, 2007, 08:15:35 AM »

Hum, your entitled to your opinion, but you fail to observe the results, if your not working for the oil companies perhaps you should be.

our testing wasn't conclusive and needs more thorough investigation. there is still more ways to test a continuous pulsed duty cycle out, and improve the efficiency, people haven't even seen the video yet, unless your reading from a crystal ball your better off side lined for now IMO.

More testing needs to be done and will give us all the info we need, I think your attitude isn't really on par with being able to benefit ATM.

EDIT

>Look at all the dozens of claims published all over the web, including on this site and on panacea, Ashtweth's site. Free energy! The world's children need this now! Please donate! Come on, man! Now that you have seen for yourself that it isn't true, you should remove the false claims

Also Hum, you going to tell me all the devices listed here don't work - don't need attention and donation?

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RandDprinciples.htm

That is what we say ALONG with the investigation and grants needed with the Chas system.

They and Chas have very sound ideas as well, and needs donation/investigation and understanding, after viewing his gravity wheel and ideas there is no doubt in my mind he could piss on any idea you could come up with

Hum, im going to go off the record now to say you seem to unnecessary piss people off and YOU dont know every thing, in fact i think you really have allot to study, besides conventional theories. thats off the record. And i would change your attitude and not try and offend people

ashtweth

Humbugger · « **Reply #281 on:** September 04, 2007, 08:42:59 AM »

Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 08:15:35 AM

Hum, your entitled to your opinion, but you fail to observe the resutls, our testing wasn't conclusive and needs more thorough investigation. there is still more ways to get continuous and test a pulsed duty cycle, and improve the efficiency, people havent even seen the video yet, unless your reading from a crystal ball your better off side lined for now IMO.

more testing that needs to be done and will give us all the info we need, I think your attitude isnt really on par with being able to benefit ATM.

My point is that somehow at some point long ago, you and many others decided there was sufficient information to publish many remarkable claims about this machine...not some future iteration of it...the existing machine. Apparently, all of those hundreds of claims one can find about this machine on the web and elsewhere had no foundation at all.

Now that the first basic simple tests have been done and utter failure has been shown, it seems that you are saying not enough testing has been done! What body of evidence and test results were used as the basis for all the amazing claims?

So, zero testing is sufficient to publicly proclaim miraculous performance and to then use those claims to raise money in the name of the world's children but, when test 1 shows normal non-miraculous ordinary dissapointing results, it is deemed insufficient. How odd. How unscientific. How sad and pathetic.

I am not here to benefit or promote false beliefs or to help you to do so. If you think that means I have a bad attitude, so be it. My attitude is intended to promote the truth and scientific method and clear communication and the genuine progress of knowledge. I make no claims as to having much success at any of those goals here, but at least I am not here to cheerlead any money-raising efforts based on fraudulent claims.

Humbugger

ashtweth_nihilisti · « **Reply #282 on:** September 04, 2007, 08:45:04 AM »

And also Hum the person who described that system to TRY and improve the duty cycle and get a continuous load out, was RAVI, who has replicated Meyer water fuel cell, he also got TWO visits from spooks.

If you know more then him let me see you reproduce what he has and tell him his ideas are shit, and you know more then he does. I said the same to do this With David Kous's battery charging RV system, test it, dont sit there and tell us what doesn't work when its based on an experiment.
Same as the Chas ideas.

its not going to happen hum, your an arm chair enthus person, replicate don't sit there and offend people you may not like whats ahead.And i would re read my post i edited it to be less of a reactive mind To you offending myself.

ashtweth_nihilisti · « **Reply #283 on:** September 04, 2007, 08:48:42 AM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 04, 2007, 08:42:59 AM

Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 08:15:35 AM
Hum, your entitled to your opinion, but you fail to observe the resutls, our testing wasn't conclusive and needs more thorough investigation. there is still more ways to get continuous and test a pulsed duty cycle, and improve the efficiency, people havent even seen the video yet, unless your reading from a crystal ball your better off side lined for now IMO.

more testing that needs to be done and will give us all the info we need, I think your attitude isnt really on par with being able to benefit ATM.

My point is that somehow at some point long ago, you and many others decided there was sufficient information to publish many remarkable claims about this machine...not some future iteration of it...the existing machine. Apparently, all of those hundreds of claims one can find about this machine on the web and elsewhere had no foundation at all.

Now that the first basic simple tests have been done and utter failure has been shown, it seems that you are saying not enough testing has been done! What body of evidence and test results were used as the basis for all the amazing claims?

So, zero testing is sufficient to publicly proclaim miraculous performance and to then use those claims to raise money in the name of the world's children but, when test 1 shows normal non-miraculous ordinary dissapointing results, it is deemed insufficient. How odd. How unscientific. How sad and pathetic.

I am not here to benefit or promote false beliefs or to help you to do so. If you think that means I have a bad attitude, so be it. My attitude is intended to promote the truth and scientific method and clear communication and the genuine progress of knowledge. I make no claims as to having much success at any of those goals here, but at least I am not here to cheerlead any money-raising efforts based on fraudulent claims.

Humbugger

Exactly what is it you think we are claiming on Chas's device, What we state on his gravity wheel i stand by, the need for more investigation on his motor Gen/fly wheel set up i stand by too. The need for his ideas to be endorsed and investigated more and grant backed i also stand by.

The need for beings like you to study more the nature of these devices i stand by
the need for your attitude to change and not piss people off i still stand by'

the need for you to base your claims on verifiable tests, not speculation i also stand by, this is what we are doing with Chas's system so far. More investigation.

I have wasted enough time for now Hum,

ashtweth_nihilisti · « **Reply #284 on:** September 04, 2007, 09:06:18 AM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 04, 2007, 08:42:59 AM

Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 08:15:35 AM
Hum, your entitled to your opinion, but you fail to observe the resutls, our testing wasn't conclusive and needs more thorough investigation. there is still more ways to get continuous and test a pulsed duty cycle, and improve the efficiency, people havent even seen the video yet, unless your reading from a crystal ball your better off side lined for now IMO.

more testing that needs to be done and will give us all the info we need, I think your attitude isnt really on par with being able to benefit ATM.

My point is that somehow at some point long ago, you and many others decided there was sufficient information to publish many remarkable claims about this machine...not some future iteration of it...the existing machine. Apparently, all of those hundreds of claims one can find about this machine on the web and elsewhere had no foundation at all.

Now that the first basic simple tests have been done and utter failure has been shown, it seems that you are saying not enough testing has been done! What body of evidence and test results were used as the basis for all the amazing claims?

So, zero testing is sufficient to publicly proclaim miraculous performance and to then use those claims to raise money in the name of the world's children but, when test 1 shows normal non-miraculous ordinary dissapointing results, it is deemed insufficient. How odd. How unscientific. How sad and pathetic.

I am not here to benefit or promote false beliefs or to help you to do so. If you think that means I have a bad attitude, so be it. My attitude is intended to promote the truth and scientific method and clear communication and the genuine progress of knowledge. I make no claims as to having much success at any of those goals here, but at least I am not here to cheerlead any money-raising efforts based on fraudulent claims.

Humbugger

>My point is that somehow at some point long ago, you and many others decided there was sufficient information to publish many remarkable claims about this machine...not some future iteration of it...the existing machine. Apparently, all of those hundreds of claims one can find about this machine on the web and elsewhere had no foundation at all.

Okay listen up, hum, my patience is running very thin with you BTW

If your referring to me Hum, being panacea, the panacea page objectively published how to go about disclosing his device, what political and economic conditions were ahead given the nature of his device, and how to go about explaining an COP of more then one to the faculties. Plus that it wasn't justified that the government and faculties dont investigate it. We published what was claimed by Chas.

We went in to investigate our selfs and are still doing that, we have found his gravity wheel to be fine, and that his motor gen-fly wheel needs experimentation and more tests.

>Now that the first basic simple tests have been done and utter failure has been shown, it seems that you are saying not enough testing has been done! What body of evidence and test results were used as the basis for all the amazing claims?

No utter failure has been shown, we tried some pulsed load and based on the ideas we have to improve the efficiency of his motor fly wheel, we will verify its duty cycle as request by ours and others. Chas never statednhe could load his system continuous, read and wake up hum , don't continue to piss me off and waste my time here.

Im sarting to think your an oil man mate, i would be careful offending people, and trying to TELL ME what i have done. change you attitude, or i might start offending you.

>I am not here to benefit or promote false beliefs or to help you to do so. If you think that means I have a bad attitude, so be it. My attitude is intended to promote the truth and scientific method and clear communication and the genuine progress of knowledge. I make no claims as to having much success at any of those goals here, but at least I am not here to cheerlead any money-raising efforts based on fraudulent claims.

you going to be a basis for insults soon Hum. Also I know some oil man are here, hope you dont get caught being one.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Chas Campbell free power motor (Read 724946 times)

wattsup

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

Prophmaji

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

GraViTaR

New Design: Need Ratios

ashtweth_nihilisti

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

Liberty

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

shruggedatlas

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

FreeEnergy

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

wattsup

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

ashtweth_nihilisti

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

ashtweth_nihilisti

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

ashtweth_nihilisti

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

ashtweth_nihilisti

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

ashtweth_nihilisti

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor