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 721634 times)

argona369

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #570 on: September 09, 2007, 10:51:48 PM »
>Humbugger ~ not long for this world my friends

Sorry to hear that Humbugger,

We worked up to a frenzy of continuous 24/7 dive bombing chem spraying
over your house.
Sorry for all the wheezing and coughing we?ve been causing.   :-\


Mark:

Deathbed request...will you and rMuD and Mark and Hans 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

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #571 on: September 09, 2007, 10:52:02 PM »
G'day all,

Stefan,

It does not matter how many balls you have waiting on the bottom ramp, or on any ramp for that matter.

What matters is that for every ball that does work a new ball has to be brought to the starting position. even if you had a 1:1 relationship on both sides of the equation (which you do not have because of friction losses and dead time and force because when the ball is on the ramp it is not doing any productive work) the best you could hope for is equilibrium, there being not enough energy in the system to create an imbalance.

Perhaps you remember the analogy of a scale when we first learned to do algebra, you had to do THE SAME THING ON BOTH SIDES.
What you are trying to do is to add something to the right side that is not available to subtract from the left in order to create an imbalance.

Hans von Lieven

PS: Perhaps "Professor" Evert will lend you some of his Aether energy :-)

Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #572 on: September 09, 2007, 10:53:32 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.

That is correct.  Stefan is using the new over-unity magic instantaneous auto-aligning Campbell Corporation Panacea brand ball cup receptacles which move around on the wheel at his wish.  He has threatened to put them on read only if they disobey.

Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #573 on: September 09, 2007, 11:00:21 PM »
>Humbugger ~ not long for this world my friends

Sorry to hear that Humbugger,

We worked up to a frenzy of continuous 24/7 dive bombing chem spraying
over your house.
Sorry for all the wheezing and coughing we?ve been causing.   :-\


Mark:

Deathbed request...will Mark and rMuD and ShruggedAtlas and Hans and Tinu and Argona360 please 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
 

You're that pissed just because I left you off my deathbed legacy wish list?  I apologize.  I'll correct that immediately.  And I thought the wheezing was from those funny cigarettes I've been smokin'.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2007, 11:31:16 PM by Humbugger »

rMuD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #574 on: September 09, 2007, 11:03:01 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 !


It's a closed system, if you have any extra going up or down..  it will run out of balls top or bottom...   you can have as many balls as you can fit in the queue, so you don't have to wait for ball to roll from the outer wheel to the inner wheel.. but that is of no consequence

the machine at 4x scale will have no weight...  negative torque machine will running backwards, all the weight pushing down on the upswing side with no weight to counter act it on the down side, runs nice as slow til there is no ball on the down stroke and then goes from a 0 or your .3 positive to a negative -3.6 differential for 8.3% (2.5 degrees) of the time gives your  -0.3 loss to equal it out

and whatever math you use it's going to be equal on both sides, even with a catastrophic failure with no weight on one of the sides

honestly with a catistropic failure beyond 3.87x larger I though you would have caught on that it was harder to dispute that running the machine backwards is actually more complex to prove it's unity in theory and could be self sustaining than keep fighting that it could work going forward at 4x

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #575 on: September 09, 2007, 11:07:57 PM »
G'day rMuD,

You are right on the money! :-)

Hans von Lieven

Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #576 on: September 09, 2007, 11:09:16 PM »
Gee, maybe it will run backward or sit there and just rock back and forth forever!  Hell yes!

Okay...never mind...get to building those replications, guys!  Last one to the woodshed is a Dilbert!

Humbugger couldn't resist

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #577 on: September 09, 2007, 11:14:30 PM »
G'day again,

If everyone had done as I suggested right at the beginning and cut out a cardboard disk and stuck some coins on it we wouldn't be having this discussion. On the other hand we would have missed much of the fun :-)

Hans von Lieven

argona369

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #578 on: September 09, 2007, 11:17:56 PM »
>You're that pissed just because I left you off my deathbed legacy wish list?

No, that?s ok Hum,
so that?s what that smell was.
I?ve already got my hands full with all the chem spraying and MIB work I have to do,,,,,

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #579 on: September 09, 2007, 11:31:34 PM »
rMuD,

 Im no math wiz, but what you are saying does not make sense to me.

 As Ive said before,  lets look at the difference in forces between:

1) I set a 100lb sphere on your back

2) I attach a 3ft metal slide to your back that is at a 45 degree angle,
and roll the ball down that - to your back.

 Are the results the same?!  No.


 Setting a ball on your back, the ball has no energy forces in it.

 Rolling the ball down the track allows it to gain speed and
more gravitational forces.   Its mass gains momentum, and
that gained power will translate to a greater mass effect.

 The work unit is different... in work being done is much
greater.

 Remember, that the wheel is not allowing full gravity speeds on
its own... because of other weights involved, as well as physical
constrictions such as frictions.   This is where the balls extra
energy comes into play, and helps boost the power levels.


Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #580 on: September 09, 2007, 11:34:06 PM »
>You're that pissed just because I left you off my deathbed legacy wish list?

No, that?s ok Hum,
so that?s what that smell was.
I?ve already got my hands full with all the chem spraying and MIB work I have to do,,,,,

Okay but how about a few more hits on that purple stuff...the neighbor lady gets really horny every time that one streaks the skies.

Hum

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #581 on: September 09, 2007, 11:39:14 PM »
G'day Zero,

The ball on his back has the SAME amount of potential energy as the rolling ball at the staring position. Only because it has not yet moved does not mean it is not there.

There is NO energy GAIN in the rolling ball.

You fail to understand the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy. Like having a tank full of petrol, because the car is not running does not mean there is no energy in the tank.

Hans von Lieven

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #582 on: September 09, 2007, 11:46:02 PM »
G'day Stefan,

Almost is not enough, it is that almost that has prevented all Bessler wheel designs we know of to fail. You do NOT have 30 degrees at a distance of 4X only 26.2   that is insufficient. Go any closer where you have the necessary arc and you have not enough torque to lift the other balls.

Hans von Lieven

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #583 on: September 09, 2007, 11:47:32 PM »
Thats not true Hans,

 The energy of the Impact when that ball hits hit back will be
much greater than it just set or resting there.


1) Take a teeter,  and put one ball on one side.
2) set a ball on the other side.

 result = teeter ballances

1) take teeter and put one ball on one side.
2) drop a ball from 3ft at the other side

 result = other sides ball will fly off the teeter.


 

fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #584 on: September 09, 2007, 11:48:47 PM »
Humbugger .. get the defibrillator out - you've got a bit more time on this earth yet ;)

IMO you are entirely correct as is Hans & others ? sometimes we just say it in different ways.

Stephan .. probably the easiest way to see if there is any continuous asymmetric torque is to use simple ?turning moments? i.e. assign a positive & negative side to the wheel thru the vertical line down thru the axle. Measure the horizontal distance [doesn?t matter what scale you use] to each weight & record them in a table format ? add them up ? they will show a net positive or negative sum.

This is a STATIC representation of the wheels torque ?redraw the same wheel a few degrees on & repeat the ?turning moments? calculations ? sum them again - plot the results of your STATIC tests ? keep repeating this process until you start to see a sinusoidal shaped curve of sorts.

Where the resultant is greatest [either positive or negative] will be the position of greatest torque [or back-torque as the case may be] ? where it is least, going down towards zero, will be the wheels ?keel position? i.e. the position of zero torque or least Potential Energy.

N.B.1 this does not account for any normal system losses such as friction, heat, sound, windage etc.

N.B.2 the wheel will naturally oscillate [between positive & negative torque] but stuck in one 30 degree segment until it settles down & keels.

If you are unconvinced that this simplified approach is valid then you can go thru the more rigorous ft/lbs of torque calcs etc but you will get the same result [a mental picture forming of the STATIC wheels ability to create continuous asymmetric torque].

If you still believe there is merit in Chas?s concept [& I mean no disrespect to Chas ? his enthusiasm & openness is laudable ? who wants to unnecessarily burst any bubble] then you need to consider the DYNAMIC situation & start to look at more complex representations of what?s going on ? I would hasten to say that in the DYNAMIC analysis you need to carefully consider Conservation of Momentum to see if there is any increase in overall wheels RPM [vis-?-vis Momentum] after system losses are approximated & accounted for.

P.S. FYI .. Ash was formally well known on Besslerwheel.com, as Epi ? where we have collectively spent a lot of time publicly analyzing such designs as Chas?s & where we also promote fairness & objectivity of comment, like Humbugger & some others here consistently demonstrate imo.