Author Topic: Chas Campbell free power motor (Read 724985 times)

tinu · « **Reply #555 on:** September 09, 2007, 06:46:09 PM »

Quote from Campbell.doc of Mr. Tseung:
?Some Physicists might not even do the mathematics and conclude that these two objections would destroy all chances of Chas Campbell having a working perpetual motion machine. They might even suggest dropping all efforts! They might quote the Law of Conservation of Energy and recommend not to waste time and effort.?

No, I?m not doing that.
But where is your math?
I couldn?t find it.

The machine doesn?t work because the total momentum averages to zero.

Tx,
Tinu

shruggedatlas · « **Reply #556 on:** September 09, 2007, 07:07:56 PM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 05:59:25 PM

Okay...I give up. This is where the laughter breaks out as the arrogant professor tears out his hair and the plotting students roll on the floor at their successful crazy-making.

Stefan obviously is not stupid. Everyone can clearly see the point I have made is correct. Stefan pretends not to get it. Humbugger goes insane being told he is wrong by an authority figure when everyone can plainly see he is right.

Humbugger, you are correct in your analysis, but I think yo should look closely at what stefan has said:

Quote

If you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again.

Stefan seems to be under the impression that you can stop the wheel and wait for the ball to go in. Maybe this is possible with some type of mechanism to keep the wheel from rolling backwards. With Chas's wheel, I think as soon as you have more force on the lift side than on the descending side, the wheel will start to move in the opposite direction.

rMuD · « **Reply #557 on:** September 09, 2007, 07:22:48 PM »

as for your beer analogy, your talking my language now... your centrifical force which I don't see how it adds any work even if your theory was correct. Here is my Beer anaology to your senerio... Take a Keg of Beer upto a 2nd Story Balcony... have your wife drop it down onto your head, for safety reasons lets say you step off so when the keg of beer hits your hands your arms are at a 45 degree angle. when that keg hits your hands and you push it off so it does not crush your toes... the keg is pushing against your arms til it hits 90 degrees.. there is no centrifical force until the keg reaches the maximum velocity of the outward force.

he is another example

a spinning motor takes more energy to start than it does to run, assuming building up the centrifical force.. In a loading and unloading gravity wheel, you throw it away on the down stroke before it reachs (2x wheel in 15 degrees, 3.87x wheel in 7.5 degrees) just at the beginning of the power curve. On the up stroke the instant you hit peak velocity for maximum centrifical force you drop it out of the system.

As for the other Device, it has been in use for 50+ years if not longer in the commerical/Industrial Market, it is a Rotary UPS http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rotary+ups Caterpillar (The Heavy Equipment/Motor Manufacturer) as far as my experience is the most mature product. It's a mechanical Battery.. and it's defiently not self sustaining.. takes almost a Day to spin up, but will output over a Megawatt of electricity before it stops spinning...

The Rotoverter is probably a mature product as well, the core of it is at least, it's what's known as a Rotary Transformer, used to power 3 phase devices from single phase.. I got a 30HP one sitting in a warehouse, that we used to use to run Large Frame Lasers that had 3-phase AC/DC power Supplies (210VDC at 40AMPS output) I havn't looked at the schematics for a rotoverter vs a rotary transformer yet, or even really looked at a rotoverter schematic, all I know is that you do the same input, have the same issues with Cap Banks vs load.. well and the fact that you use don't add a alternator off the shaft.

MIB turned me down for my badge, said I am working on the wrong side, I should be encourging the research of concepts that are known failures for the past 3000 years

zero · « **Reply #558 on:** September 09, 2007, 07:34:04 PM »

hartiberlin,

Putting a ball in each hole at one time would not be a true representation
of how his system works.

Again, being that the balls roll at maybe a 30 to 35 degree slope
after it hits the PCS pipes, and then slam the wheel with extra energy.

Nobody has added that into the equation Yet. (Hans... still waiting...)

It also would not take into consideration a gradual time slope which
gets the forces up to a certain speed and centrifical force. This
could result in improper results.

Ive already listed the things that Chas can do to fix his machine
which are fairly easy to do. (with the bottom gate being the
most challenging, but still achievable for such a handy inverter)

I think its easier it he just repair that points I suggest than to
speculate further.

Humbugger · « **Reply #559 on:** September 09, 2007, 09:10:45 PM »

rMuD: Your insight is keen. You must be an old guy like me. [they were called dynamotors in the military...very common knowledge...easy to tune for peak efficiency as long as the output load was unchanging...after the war, lots of people wrote up plans for jiggling the caps around to use 400Hz units on 60Hz and three phase units on single phase]

re: "MIB turned me down for my badge, said I am working on the wrong side, I should be encourging the research of concepts that are known failures for the past 3000 years"

If I were a strategist working for CIA, MIB, big oil, the PTB, etc., it would not take me long to suggest that the strategy of sending dozens of skeptics into arenas like this would be stupid and futile. It could actually further the "progress of the science" if they were at all effective at truncating futile efforts.

Far more effective would be the placement of a few strategic leadership folks who would pose as avid enthusiasts and openly encourage every proposed idea no matter how easily it was proven unworkable by even simple inspection. The hoards of sincere hopeful believers manipulated by a few chuckling false gurus getting rich pretending to carry the banner of free energy heroes,soldiers and martyrs. Now you have an effective strategy for denigrating the whole field and assuring no progress.

Anyone insisting on critical thought would have to be silenced, banned, ridiculed and shouted down or frustrated into oblivion. The place would become so completely full of rabidly-pursued unworkable ideas and ultra-enthusiastic fervent replicators that anyone with a decent ability to think and reason abstractly would forget the whole idea of free energy after one visit!

What better way to push potentially contributing thinking people away and to sourly discredit the whole free energy concept as being foolish? The "mole skeptic" idea looks limp by comparison.

Next time anyone uses the "oil-man" accusation in response to a logical skeptical argument, think about that.

Humbugger ~ I don't work for nobody ~ I ain't got no badges!

[Disclaimer: The story you have just read is fictional speculation; food for thought. Any resemblance to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental and does not imply that such persons or events coincide with the ideas expressed here in any way.]

rMuD · « **Reply #560 on:** September 09, 2007, 09:23:56 PM »

Quote from: zero on September 09, 2007, 07:34:04 PM

hartiberlin,

Putting a ball in each hole at one time would not be a true representation
of how his system works.

Again, being that the balls roll at maybe a 30 to 35 degree slope
after it hits the PCS pipes, and then slam the wheel with extra energy.

Nobody has added that into the equation Yet. (Hans... still waiting...)

It also would not take into consideration a gradual time slope which
gets the forces up to a certain speed and centrifical force. This
could result in improper results.

Ive already listed the things that Chas can do to fix his machine
which are fairly easy to do. (with the bottom gate being the
most challenging, but still achievable for such a handy inverter)

I think its easier it he just repair that points I suggest than to
speculate further.

Net Gain is 0 pushing 1 distance or dropping with acceleration still equals 1 unit of work to the machine F=ma

Mass of Object = 1;
Free falling in a vacuum at Sea Level is 9.78 m/s
Device will operate at a rate of 1m/s

Both apply to the meter/second.. so it takes 1 second to fall 9.78 meters, and 9.78 seconds for the device to travel

Distance of Travel we will say to be simple is 9.78m

Freel Fall will give us
F = 1 x 9.78 = 9.78 X 1 Second
F = 9.78

Device
F = 1 X 1 = 1 x 9.78 Seconds
F = 9.78

Free Fall Force = Device Pushing Force

markdansie · « **Reply #561 on:** September 09, 2007, 09:37:50 PM »

The trouble with not taking a scientific approach to validating this project is it does more damage than good to the Free Energy Cause. The same thing happenned with the Joe Cell, it was surrounded by cultish believers but to this day not one Joe cell can be produced that will run a car without fuel. the ony people to benefit were the stailess steel vendors.
I also find it amusing that a person like myself who is a member of the New Energy Congress, who has travelled the world evaluating these types of technologies (I have had 37 flights this year including 16 internationals) is not allowed to attend a demonstration of this device. Why?

I guess the next step is to try and discredit me, or as in the case of the Joe Cell people threaten me.
Mark

Humbugger · « **Reply #562 on:** September 09, 2007, 09:39:53 PM »

Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 09, 2007, 07:07:56 PM

Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 05:59:25 PM
Okay...I give up. This is where the laughter breaks out as the arrogant professor tears out his hair and the plotting students roll on the floor at their successful crazy-making.

Stefan obviously is not stupid. Everyone can clearly see the point I have made is correct. Stefan pretends not to get it. Humbugger goes insane being told he is wrong by an authority figure when everyone can plainly see he is right.

Humbugger, you are correct in your analysis, but I think yo should look closely at what stefan has said:

Quote
If you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again.

Stefan seems to be under the impression that you can stop the wheel and wait for the ball to go in. Maybe this is possible with some type of mechanism to keep the wheel from rolling backwards. With Chas's wheel, I think as soon as you have more force on the lift side than on the descending side, the wheel will start to move in the opposite direction.

Shrugged:

Yes, it is obvious I have failed to communicate well enough. Please think about this one last time.

No matter the stopping and going. No matter the rate of balls rolling along ramps. No matter the number of extra balls waiting on ramps.

If there is two feet of linear distance between each of the 12 cups on the outer wheel and if the fixed places where the ramps feed and retrieve the balls into and out of the wheel's cups are only one foot apart, then there will be some times when there are no balls in the outer wheel's cups

In other words, once again, when the cup with the ball in it gets to the exit ramp and moves out of the big wheel's cup and onto the ramp, at that very moment, no matter there may be 87 balls waiting and ready to get into the next available entry cup from the top ramp, the receiving cup isstill a whole foot away from being in position to receive a ball.

In this case, the time of having a ball on the wheel and the time it would be empty would be equal. For our torque add-up then, we would only count half of one ball on the right side of the wheel as an average.

Stefan keeps insisting there would always be at least one ball on the outer wheel. He seems to think there will automatically be a cup in position to receive a new ball as soon as the ball is present at the feeding end of the upper ramp. In reality, it can't get on the wheel until the next empty cup arrives.

Only a forward jerking infinite-speed motion could get the next empty cup in place to receive the new ball at the same time the old ball leaves its cup for the exit ramp. Stopping the wheel does nothing. I am already giving that the ramps always have a fresh ball in position whenever a cup comes by.

"Stefan seems to be under the impression that you can stop the wheel and wait for the ball to go in."

You would have an infinitely long wait on your hands if you stopped the wheel at the moment the lower ball leaves it cup. The upper "feed" ramp may have a ball ready after only a moment, but the wheel will be even further out of position to receive it if it has been stopped or slowed.

Please tell me you get it now. Please...even if you have to lie!

Humbugger

Humbugger · « **Reply #563 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:07:39 PM »

Quote from: markdansie on September 09, 2007, 09:37:50 PM

The trouble with not taking a scientific approach to validating this project is it does more damage than good to the Free Energy Cause. The same thing happenned with the Joe Cell, it was surrounded by cultish believers but to this day not one Joe cell can be produced that will run a car without fuel. the ony people to benefit were the stailess steel vendors.
I also find it amusing that a person like myself who is a member of the New Energy Congress, who has travelled the world evaluating these types of technologies (I have had 37 flights this year including 16 internationals) is not allowed to attend a demonstration of this device. Why?
I guess the next step is to try and discredit me, or as in the case of the Joe Cell people threaten me.
Mark

Mark:

Deathbed request...will you and rMuD and ShruggedAtlas and Hans and Argona369 and Tinu take over for me after I croak or get banned? It would settle my heart and soul. Your post echoes my sentiments exactly and in fewer, less "pointy" words.

Humbugger ~ not long for this world my friends

shruggedatlas · « **Reply #564 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:16:21 PM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 09:39:53 PM

Please tell me you get it now. Please...even if you have to lie!

Humbugger

I get it now - I was looking at the wrong chart. In the 3.8763 distance diagram, it looked like the receptacles lined up perfectly to get the balls, but I see you are now discussing a distance of 4:1, where the receptacle cup cannot get to the next ball in time, so you would indeed have no balls at all, and you would need Chas's arm to help the device along.

On the bright side, I think the wheel can still work. We simply need to pay Chas to stand next to it and give it a little push every few seconds or so. Of course to determine over or under unity, we have to calculate the calories in the food we feed Chas and then make an appropriate calculation of the work he is doing, so we can compare. Hans, can you assist with such calculations?

To increase efficiency, we could also deliver the food to Chas's mouth using a flywheel.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #565 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:24:10 PM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 09:39:53 PM

In other words, once again, when the cup with the ball in it gets to the exit ramp and moves out of the big wheel's cup and onto the ramp, at that very moment, no matter there may be 87 balls waiting and ready to get into the next available entry cup from the top ramp, the receiving cup isstill a whole foot away from being in position to receive a ball.

So what about having more balls waiting on the lower ramp, than are on the upper ramp ?
Then you could easily stop the wheel and wait until the next ball has gone 4 x distance out and
still have a next ball at the lower entrance to go upwards !

Not so complicated right ?
So Humbuger,
where are still your torque calculations ?

Humbugger · « **Reply #566 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:24:24 PM »

Shrugged...I have added your name and Hans' to my deathbed request above. Thank you for helping an "arrogant" old tired engineer get some well-deserved sleep. It was really bugging me.

Thanks for thinking hard

Humbugger

hartiberlin · « **Reply #567 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:36:37 PM »

So Humbugger,
what about this ?
10 balls in play game,
enough waiting to get picked up.
If the upper left ball at 11 o?clock is on the upper ramp,
wheel is stopped shortly, so the ball can roll out and get the next red
ball to propell the wheel ?
So who is showing me the error in my torque calculation
of the 3.9 to 3.6 advantage ?

Thanks.

Humbugger · « **Reply #568 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:43:37 PM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 10:24:10 PM

Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 09:39:53 PM

In other words, once again, when the cup with the ball in it gets to the exit ramp and moves out of the big wheel's cup and onto the ramp, at that very moment, no matter there may be 87 balls waiting and ready to get into the next available entry cup from the top ramp, the receiving cup isstill a whole foot away from being in position to receive a ball.

So what about having more balls waiting on the lower ramp, than are on the upper ramp ?
Then you could easily stop the wheel and wait until the next ball has gone 4 x distance out and
still have a next ball at the lower entrance to go upwards !

Not so complicated right ?
So Humbuger,
where are still your torque calculations ?

Either you are really purposely avoiding this issue or I have overestimated your intelligence. You are entirely capable of doing the math. I just wanted you to do it with a correct understanding of how many balls are on the right side of the wheel. I have worked far too hard at communicating an extremely clear and obviously true fact to be fooled into thinking I need to do more.

I am convinced; you may choose to go on with the pretense that your calculations based on having a 4:1 wheel setup and two balls on the right are valid. If we cannot agree on the number of balls on the wheel, there is no point in adding up the torques. I'm tired of this particular game.

You tell me how many balls are on the outer wheel averaged over 30 degrees at a 4:1 ratio. If the number agrees with mine [hint: it's less than unity], I'll do the calculation. If not, we end this charade.

Humbugger

shruggedatlas · « **Reply #569 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:50:48 PM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 10:36:37 PM

So Humbugger,
what about this ?
10 balls in play game,
enough waiting to get picked up.
If the upper left ball at 11 o?clock is on the upper ramp,
wheel is stopped shortly, so the ball can roll out and get the next red
ball to propell the wheel ?
So who is showing me the error in my torque calculation
of the 3.9 to 3.6 advantage ?

Thanks.

There is something wrong in your chart, I think. It is hard to explain without pointing and showing - alas the Interent - but I will do my best. You notice how the receptacles in the outer wheel are not evenly spaced? I think you simply moved the receptacles in the outer wheel to where they would line up with the ramps, without accounting for where they actually need to be for the system to work. You will notice that if you try to trace a straight line, you cannot get from the ball in the outside wheel receptacle to the corresponding ball in the inner wheel.

News:

User Menu