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 721635 times)

shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #660 on: September 10, 2007, 03:51:44 AM »

impressive, I was almost fooled by it

I see that the stop at the end of the ramp is of the same height

but the last frame shows the near ball lower on the track to the back stop

though the track appears to be at the same height at the end.. the track is wider giving the extra downward force

I agree that is a really clever experiment.  According to what I know about the laws of physics, this should be impossible.  I do not think the track is wider at the end, but I do think that it is lower.  If you look very carefully, the uphill side does not seem as steep at the downhill side, so I think the ball ends up lower that it does on the top track.

markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #661 on: September 10, 2007, 03:57:00 AM »
I thought I might ask here (sorry of topic)
does anyone know of a good 3d fem software for magnet research
My email is mark.dansie@advatel.biz
Thanks

gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #662 on: September 10, 2007, 03:59:49 AM »
Okay, should I now delete all the offtopic postings and the nice blond bomdshell ?
The other way around would be better. Start a new topic and give us an update on the research done.

gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #663 on: September 10, 2007, 04:02:35 AM »
  When one opens the Pandora's box of rejecting basic laws of physics and thermodynamics, one loses a lot of assumptions that provide a stable common ground for discussion.

everything you cant make evident is nonsense :-)

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #664 on: September 10, 2007, 04:19:31 AM »
Okay, here is a better explanation and better movie of the 2 balls crossing with
different speed the same distance, although they have at the end the same
potential and kinetic energy:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,209.0.html

quoated from:
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/demo/demobook/mechpage.htm


    * High / Low Road Track:

A race between two balls as they move between the same change in potential energy.
One follows a straight track and the other follows a longer curved track.
The curved track ball finishes first due to higher kinetic energy.

=================================

This can be definately used by Chad to speed up the balls reaching their far end !

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #665 on: September 10, 2007, 04:28:43 AM »
Okay, so this now could be a final working solution,
without using a SMOT ramp.

If somebody tells me, how I could simulate these 30 degrees slots taking the yellow
balls inside, I could simulate this in WM2D.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: Hi Ash,
please forward this diagram to Chas, when you visit him again.
Many thanks.

rMuD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #666 on: September 10, 2007, 04:35:10 AM »

In my head Chas second device ended up a 1000 KG concrete flywheel cast in a ditch with it's axle fixed onto a generator. Then use the slippery belt stuffs to make it go. You can drive your car on top and give it a good whirl. You think your little coffee maker is going to stop that mass?

I'm not going to do the math. *grin*

I already know concrete is cheaper as batteries. I'm not fooled  :D

oh they are much heavier than that.. we wanted to put a  600KVA unit in the basement of the building, the elevators couldn't handle the discs individually that made up the 3 meter tall stack of them, we were going to have to dig a hole and cut a hole in the side of the building to put them in.. decided to scrap the project.

Concrete my god that would be a nightmare to balance..  1000KG

Good problem thinking,

Just make it float with it's axle at the height of the bearings.

Bit of wax etc

You can also make 2 of 500 kg on the same axle.

4 of 250 kg etc :-)

Doesn't sound undoable?

Can we fix the generator straight on the axle?

these are already manufactured by 10-20 different companies, and are wide spread used around the world..  generations of experience out there making these

shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #667 on: September 10, 2007, 04:45:44 AM »
Okay, so this now could be a final working solution,
without using a SMOT ramp.

If somebody tells me, how I could simulate these 30 degrees slots taking the yellow
balls inside, I could simulate this in WM2D.

Regards, Stefan.

P.S: Hi Ash,
please forward this diagram to Chas, when you visit him again.
Many thanks.

There is a problem on the lift side, where you have the balls surrounded by rails (drawn in red) to bring them closer to the center.  True, you initially gain by doing this, but the problem will be once the balls are lifted above the center of the wheel.  What will happen is that the balls get squeezed in the narrow angle, greatly increasing the friction involved in lifting them to the top.

Also, can anyone else comment on the balls and the two ramps experiment?  I am a novice at this, but this seems to be wrong somehow.  To make the ball arrive faster should take energy, but if the ball ends up at the same altitude as before, then the PE to KE exchange is equal, so I do not understand how this can happen.

ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #668 on: September 10, 2007, 04:48:07 AM »
Hi guys, okay more for you to scratch your heads with (check attachments)

"found the original pic:
http://www.hcrs.at/BILDER/KUGEL2.JPG

Made the autocad drawing, then imported into Silux mechanical simulation.

The upper ball finishes first, because it has to go lower way and lower
friction losses. If I turn off the friction they should arrive at the same
time. This is the potential energy demonstration E=mgh, where you cannot
normally trick the energy. (conventional thinking)

Edit,

Hi Stefan, sure thing just catching up on the emails now and updating the web site will answer your email and post the results in the thread

shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #669 on: September 10, 2007, 05:02:02 AM »
Hi guys, okay more for you to scratch your heads with (check attachments)

"found the original pic:
http://www.hcrs.at/BILDER/KUGEL2.JPG

Made the autocad drawing, then imported into Silux mechanical simulation.

The upper ball finishes first, because it has to go lower way and lower
friction losses. If I turn off the friction they should arrive at the same
time. This is the potential energy demonstration E=mgh, where you cannot
normally trick the energy. (conventional thinking)

Edit,

Hi Stefan, sure thing just catching up on the emails now and updating the web site will answer your email and post the results in the thread

I did a little digging and I was wrong about this being impossible.  This conforms with the laws of physics and is is related to the Brachistrochone curve problem.  The Brachistochrone curve is the curve of fastest descent, so it is indeed true that two objects can arrive at the destination point at different times.  Here is the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone

However, I do not see how this really matters to the gravity wheel.  We are already free to have as many balls in queue as we need, so we do not care about getting to the end of the ramp faster.

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #670 on: September 10, 2007, 05:09:19 AM »
We need the upper red ball to go faster out to 4x distance,
cause normally it can only go out to 3.8 in the time the right slot
for taking it down arrives !
With this trick we can get the red ball more far out faster...

Sure in
sliderails3.jpg
the red 2 slider rails must be curved for lower friction.
but if you succeed to get the yellow balls more into the center during lift
then the torquearm is lower and that gives the wheel more energy.

shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #671 on: September 10, 2007, 05:32:37 AM »
We need the upper red ball to go faster out to 4x distance,
cause normally it can only go out to 3.8 in the time the right slot
for taking it down arrives !
With this trick we can get the red ball more far out faster...]

OK, I now see how Hum wanted to pull his hair out.  Just pretend there are lots of balls on the upper ramp.  When one exits the lift, there is already a ball waiting to be taken down on the other side of the ramp.  This has been discussed already, I think, and there are no issues with timing.  The entire problem is that the receptacle that should be taking the ball down is still above where it needs to be in order for the ball to get into it.  Even if a ball magically teleported from the lift to the waiting position, it still has no place to go yet.

Quote
Sure in
sliderails3.jpg
the red 2 slider rails must be curved for lower friction.
but if you succeed to get the yellow balls more into the center during lift
then the torquearm is lower and that gives the wheel more energy.

Well, you can only curve so much, so I think you will still have a friction problem.  You have brought the balls so close to the center that it leaves a very steep angle of ascent.  You cannot help but squeeze them.

Also, even with no friction, I see no advantage to bringing the balls closer in.  You are just temporarily playing with leverage.  The closer in they are, the less they are lifted, given an equal movement by the outer wheel, so you do not gain anything by doing this.  At the end of the day, they still have to get all the way up to the top.  So what you have gained below wheel center, you lose above wheel center.

Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #672 on: September 10, 2007, 05:35:13 AM »
We need the upper red ball to go faster out to 4x distance,
cause normally it can only go out to 3.8 in the time the right slot
for taking it down arrives !

With this trick we can get the red ball more far out faster...

Sure in
sliderails3.jpg
the red 2 slider rails must be curved for lower friction.
but if you succeed to get the yellow balls more into the center during lift
then the torquearm is lower and that gives the wheel more energy.

@Stefan 

"normally it can only go out to 3.8 in the time the right slot
for taking it down arrives"


Somehow I missed where that particular idea came from.  Certainly not from me.  All of my models assumed zero travel time on the delivery ramps.  The 3.8673 number had nothing to do with time or ball travel on the rails, only trigonometry and geometry.

Anyway...we seem to have forgotten that all of the previous discussion (at least in my mind) allowed for the assumed instantaneous travel of the balls on the ramps and no friction and no slopes needed on the ramps...the perfect ideal setup and...

It still would not work because the wheel force torques are balanced.  Don't tell me we wasted all that time, please.

The speed of the balls on the ramps would be idealized by following a parabola-like trajectory as in the Brachistochrone curve that ShruggedAtlas brings to our attention (a very old demonstration of very conventional physics principals).  But, as Shrugged says and as our entire prior discussion had already assumed, the wheel still does not turn even with light-speed ball travel in a friction-free idealization.

So, bring on the SMOTs, the Magnetic ICs, the Pulse Lead-out Anti-Graviton cylinders and the Magnesium Grignard Reactors.  We'll get it to work, have no fear.  I am confident.  I liked Gaby's ideas the best.

Humbugger

rMuD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #673 on: September 10, 2007, 06:12:05 AM »
For those who like to stay on topic.. ::).
Stuff given to me by email

check out the attached video.!!!If this doesn't prove that using gravity but also putting a weight into a radius gives you added gains then I give up.The ball has further to travel and yet will increase in speed gaining greater kinetic energy than a normal straight fall

" look at this video of the 2 balls rolling, and she immediately said the rail is not a perfect curve, and the beginning of the semicircle is shaped differently than the other side of the curvature.
Heck,  there is the clue to the bonus energy, , This is the real thing for advancements if you can see it."



impressive, I was almost fooled by it
I see that the stop at the end of the ramp is of the same height
but the last frame shows the near ball lower on the track to the back stop
though the track appears to be at the same height at the end.. the track is wider giving the extra downward force

I completely recant what I said, I said things before I confirmed them, that video is absolutely true and would happen


what I do have to say about it is, the ramp without the dip will travel a longer distance, because of the shorter track, the ball on the track with the dip may get to the top of it's dip faster, but it has less energy than the ball on the straight track (slower).

Meaning: the gravity wheel needs to move a ball up higher than it started coming off the inner wheel.  it would take less energy to just go uphill vs travel the extra distance from the dip.

Common Sense: if there was extra energy in going down a dip and back up than going level..  a Overunity device would be as simple as a circular track with several dips, and it would accelerate to infinity

I am foolish again...  completely wrong

« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 11:48:02 PM by rMuD »

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #674 on: September 10, 2007, 06:19:32 AM »


what I do have to say about it is, the ramp without the dip will travel a longer distance, because of the shorter track, the ball on the track with the dip may get to the top of it's dip faster, but it has less energy than the ball on the straight track (slower).

Meaning: the gravity wheel needs to move a ball up higher than it started coming off the inner wheel.  it would take less energy to just go uphill vs travel the extra distance from the dip.

Common Sense: if there was extra energy in going down a dip and back up than going level..  a Overunity device would be as simple as a circular track with several dips, and it would accelerate to infinity

You did not yet understand that.
The 2 balls come to the end with the same potential and
kinetic energy, so they have the same speed, but as
the ball taking the dip transverses the distance faster,
it is just first there.
It has to do with the ball taking the dip being faster during the
dip, cause there it has more kinetic energy and thus speed,
so it transverses faster the track.
But when it comes up again, it has the same speed
and the same potential energy as the ball going in the straight track.