Author Topic: Chas Campbell free power motor (Read 725109 times)

tinu · « **Reply #600 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:23:48 AM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on September 10, 2007, 12:11:21 AM

Tinu,
you did not analyze my last picture.
Things change, when you different setups.
I now have always only 1 ball at the right side, not 2.

I will try to calculate it tomorrow with your formulars
and then we will see, where the error is.

It doesn?t really matter.
The result will always be zero.

I?ve told it before: it?s difficult to write a demonstration that is valid for any conceivable case. But for any n, R, the simple math shows zero torque.

Tinu

P.S. Simple copy-paste; srry for it:

Ok, here it is for your second case, Stefan:

Angle a=30 degrees
if m- mass of each ball, assume m*g=1, for simplicity
Right: 1 ball
Left: 5 balls (as per your second picture)

Torque:
Right: Rext*cos(a/2) ; I guess here was your error. The ball is at 15 degrees
Left: Rint+2*Rint*cos(a) +2*Rint*cos(2*a)

If Rint=1, Rext=Rmax theoretically possible for 12 total slots and 1 on the right = 3.8637, you?ll have:

Right: 3.8637* 0.96592 = 3.7321
Left: 1+2*0.866 + 2*0.5 = 3.7321

Great! The wheel stays!

See? It?s exactly the same!

Humbugger · « **Reply #601 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:28:57 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 10, 2007, 12:22:14 AM

except Hum at 3.8673x the inner you do not have enough torque to lift the other balls

Hans von Lieven

I always have enough torque to lift my balls...even without Viagara...

I want to know, since i have once again been accused of ridiculing and being a naughty bad skeptic, just how you stick an integer number of cups evenly around a circle at 29 degrees apart. Until I get that answer from Stefan and his confession that the "change it to 29 degrees" idea was absolutely absurd, i'm going to shut up and have a shot of single malt.

Hum

gaby de wilde · « **Reply #602 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:30:05 AM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 02:57:36 PM

Gaby demonstates that he was not following the earlier discussion where Stefan suggested that Charles's wheel could not work unless the ratio of outer radius to inner radius were larger than Charles 2:1 ratio. Stefan did simple torque arm math that convincingly showed this for the 2:1 case.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48064.html#msg48064

Others joined in, I among them, and an excellent discussion raged for an hour or more. I don't recall Gaby participating.

One of the ideas proposed was that there was no limit on the ratio.

Another was that there would always be at least one ball on the right side of the wheel no matter the size. Another was that there are times when two balls ride the right side when the ratio is 4:1.

All three of those assertions are untrue and I set out to show that. All of it simply leads to the conclusion, if the simple math is done correctly, that the torque moments are always equal and opposite for a full cycle.

Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 03:17:10 PM

P.S. Don?t bother gaby; he?s above us all; well above and out of this world?

(http://img.go-here.nl/chas-is-cool.png)

*edit*
The balls spiral inwards cuz that makes it spin faster (in case that wasn't obvious)

rMuD · « **Reply #603 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:32:51 AM »

Quote from: zero 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.

think about what you said here... if your knocking a ball up... if it was more energy.. wouldn't the other ball go up further than where you dropped the other ball from? which then falls and the other ball goes up even higher? circus preformers bodies in orbit?

go out in the back yard, put two baskets on the ends of a 2x4 and chair in the middle where it's balanced.. or a axle

do drop tests.. you will find that as long as you do not drop the ball further than the distance the teeter totter can move your not going to have a flying ball.. and if you go beyond that.. you aren't going to exceed the height you started with, from mechanical loss, also a signifigant lost from the fact that when you impact the teeter totter with the falling ball, some of the energy has to be absorbed by the board because it cannot accelarate instantly

I'll draw a picture

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #604 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:33:25 AM »

Zero. you seem to think that if you run a ball down a PVC pipe you can gain energy, quite the contrary, you lose some.

I suggest the study of an elementary text on physics. Inclined planes would be a good place to start.

Oops sorry, I forgot science is wrong on everything.

Sorry.

Hans von Lieven

Humbugger · « **Reply #605 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:42:55 AM »

@Stefan

Please...Tell us how you would evenly space a cup every 29 degrees then on a 360 degree circle. Only a whole number of cups, please.

I have poured and consumed two shots of Glen Livet, I am ready to hear your answer.

Humbugger

zero · « **Reply #606 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:43:36 AM »

The point is, that there is additional forces when the ball is moving and
impacting the wheel rather than just being gently placed there.

Hans, I believe in science. But what you are doing is misinterpreting it
to your advantage.

Here is another idea I had, which might not work due to friction and
other complications...

If all the inner cups were slideable than you could use a guide track
to keep a lot of the weight more towards the center.

red = guide rail
Green = slide pocket tracks

hartiberlin · « **Reply #607 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:47:47 AM »

Quote from: tinu on September 10, 2007, 12:23:48 AM

Right: 3.8637* 0.96592 = 3.7321
Left: 1+2*0.866 + 2*0.5 = 3.7321

Okay, you made the error at the right side !

there we have an angle of 14,5 degrees, as I said, I could do it with 29 degrees,
so 29:2 = 14.5 degrees.
so cos (14.5 degrees)= 0,9681 x 4 = 3.87

At the left side you were right:
1x sin 90 + 2 x sin 60 + 2 x sin 30 = 1+2*0.866 + 2*0.5 = 3.7321

So I still have an advantage of :
3.87 to 3.73

tinu · « **Reply #608 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:47:48 AM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 10, 2007, 12:42:55 AM

@Stefan

Please...Tell us how you would evenly space a cup every 29 degrees then on a 360 degree circle. Only a whole number of cups, please.

I have poured and consumed two shots of Glen Livet, I am ready to hear your answer.

Humbugger

(Better that it's no longer necessary do do it...
Already proved that Campbell's wheel is not working. See above.)

Tinu

hartiberlin · « **Reply #609 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:55:34 AM »

Quote from: zero on September 10, 2007, 12:43:36 AM

Here is another idea I had, which might not work due to friction and
other complications...

If all the inner cups were slideable than you could use a guide track
to keep a lot of the weight more towards the center.

red = guide rail
Green = slide pocket tracks

Great idea , zero,
I guess this could work, if it is not too steep and the rolling friction
for this would be low.

But I think the Bob Kostoff device is a much better candidate for
an efficient gravity converter, as it uses the bigger centrifugal force
and converts this to energy output.

With this Kostoff device there can be much bigger power densities
reached with much smaller devices as you only have to buildup speed,
to maximize the centrifugal forces.
This can also be done in a small wheel, when it is build right.

Does anyone know, how to model a spring fixation mechanism in
Working Model 2D simulator software ?
Then this could be easily simulated with this.
I have to find out, how I could fix a spring in a compressed stage
and then release it 180 degrees later.
If anybody know, please send me a private mail.
Thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

zero · « **Reply #610 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:55:36 AM »

Revised. Needed dual guides to keep from falling:

Comments?

Humbugger · « **Reply #611 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:58:34 AM »

it appears that we are converging on zero-point

just not as rapidly as i expected

Stefan will be rounding each set of numbers toward the advantage of hope

the nasty skeptics will keep adding decimal places of accuracy

the advantage will decimate but only after eighty three more pages

Don't they call this calculus?

hartiberlin · « **Reply #612 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:59:06 AM »

@gaby,
good idea with the SMOT ramp.
If Chas is still buying the real big ball bearings he could really use it and get it
overunity this way for sure.

zero · « **Reply #613 on:** September 10, 2007, 12:59:40 AM »

Stephan,

Thanks

Well, the point was not to make the most efficient device. Rather to proove
that a device could be made to be Overunity. Which I believe it can be.

I dont believe anyone has seen and fully understood the workings of the
other gravity device...?

ltseung888 · « **Reply #614 on:** September 10, 2007, 01:00:30 AM »

Dear Ash.

I have updated my campbell.doc information to Version 1.1. See:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48484.html#msg48484

I included some valuable discussion points from other Forum Members. I had to admit that I have never seen such high quality discussions - even in the steorn.com forum.

I shall try to leave only one version on this forum at any one time.

Regards,
Lawrence Tseung

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Chas Campbell free power motor (Read 725109 times)

tinu

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

gaby de wilde

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

rMuD

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

hansvonlieven

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

zero

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

hartiberlin

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

tinu

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

hartiberlin

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

zero

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

hartiberlin

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

zero

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor

ltseung888

Re: Chas Campbell free power motor