.

The concept is interesting, but either the billiard balls are changed for heavier balls or the whole thing has to be made lighter and smoother. Or both things.

@Ashtweth, Thank you very much for your effort. You did a great job. Chas seems to be a friendly person. Thanks for this first video.

You just can't help but like Charles Campbell.  He's sincere, enthusiastic and quite the garage tinkerer.  I wish I'd had a grandpa like him when I was young.  Charles, you can tell, hasn't got a dishonest bone in his body or a selfish thought in his heart.  I'm pleased he's getting some attention for his work.  He obviously enjoys showing and talking about his machines.  That's great.

That's all I have to say about Charles Campbell and his "free energy machines".  That's all there really is to say!

Humbugger

 

"...test and report or leave it alone and or F##K off..."

You should listen to your own advice and take it to heart, Ashtweth.

Its compressed well, and can be uploaded to google video except my google video upload keeps cutting off.

i suggest people upload it to google video.

If one does a quick, off the cuff, relatively simple and sensible mental calculation of the Bessler wheels (the original ones), and looks at the constructional information in this context...then one quickly realizes that in the Bessler situation, it is very likely that the motional components have a mass that outweighs the structural components by a factor of about 2:1 and up to 4:1 or 5:1.

It was stated that the systems were covered in wood. And they weighed in at the 900lb (kilos?) mark. Nothing says that the structural components themselves were wood or not. One might assume metal, and thus the wheel stucture being about the same or less/more (but in the area of similar mass) mass than the motional components, but that would be an assumption, same as I'm doing here, but in the opposite direction.

I'd guess that the motional components outweigh the structural components in a working system, buy a factor of 3:1 or 5:1, as a range. This range being essential for getting an initial wheel up and running. All guesses, but I'm rarely wrong. Which is why I'll be moving forward on such a guess, in my attempts to create a working wheel.

It's inertial vs kinetic here, and the more 'working' mass that is motional vs the structural....the better. What this would mean, is that during the 'lurch' and 'work' part of the 'lever/fulcrum' function, the mass differential between the two primary and horizontaily shifting points becomes the dominant force, as much as they can be, without a high mass or high inertia wheel structure impeding that function. The other masses which can be put in motion (operational masses that are not in their primary or dominant phase) can also contribute, as much as they can, once again, wthout a high mass wheel causing too much interference via inertial 'reluctance'.

my conclusion at the moment: interesting video. simple idea.  the snookers ball concept should work, when build properly (at least i can not see why not). but i just spend only some minutes to think over.

original gravity wheel with the unbalanced red weight connected to thy flywheels/generator is still missing. would be interesting, because this concept would be ready to use for 1kW free power. maybe sometimes later.

thanks to chas for this first impression.