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 721640 times)

rMuD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #675 on: September 10, 2007, 06:24:03 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

I gave up trying to beat 3.87 into them.. even if there is a "ZPE" magic force that can move the device forward the 1.1 degrees with no mass to push it past that point, it still doesn't work..   It's kinda like why the gravity wheel works, cause of a catastropic failure that removes mass (a ball) from the upward swing.  even if 4:1 had a flywheel to push it thru the 1.1 degrees with no mass on the force side...  it still comes out 0 net gain.   

rMuD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #676 on: September 10, 2007, 06:39:59 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.


there is no claim or meantion of speed at the end of the ramp being the same, the ball with the dip is going slower after it comes up that hill than the ball going level, if you extended the track, the ball with the dip will stop shorter than the ball that went on the straight track.  The difference  will be the same distance the track was extended to make the dip.

If you are right and I am wrong, a dip in a track is over unity by the difference between a straight track and the dipped track

F=ma   

my mind is too simple.. my error
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 11:49:05 PM by rMuD »

rMuD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #677 on: September 10, 2007, 06:47:29 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.


there is no claim or meantion of speed at the end of the ramp being the same, the ball with the dip is going slower after it comes up that hill than the ball going level, if you extended the track, the ball with the dip will stop shorter than the ball that went on the straight track.  The difference  will be the same distance the track was extended to make the dip.

If you are right and I am wrong, a dip in a track is over unity by the difference between a straight track and the dipped track

F=ma 

one minor thing I didn't make clear, the balls are traveling at the same "speed" when the ball reaches the top of the ramp...  but is decelerating faster when it hits the stop the dipped ball is traveling slower

I now can picture this as a acceleration curve, sorry for being me
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 11:50:00 PM by rMuD »

ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #678 on: September 10, 2007, 08:52:29 AM »
As Requested by Stefan

"did you ask Chas, what this red plastic offcenter thing was in the CD video
in his big wheel there ?

Answer

"it is nothing special, he only had his big wheel going there for show and  to distract from his motor flywheel set up."


I agree is prob best to begin a new Chas thread with technical data and updates

Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #679 on: September 10, 2007, 08:53:01 AM »
"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."

I believe Stefan's description here is right on the money.  No excess energy is generated but the ball travelling the longer distance will arrive first and has a higher average speed; same terminal speed.  A true Brachy-path would get there even faster than the dipped track shown and no other shape could beat it. 

It's a very cool example anti-intuitive; it seems to defy what we normally would guess might happen.  Technically, it is only relevant in solving a speed problem; no free energy.  Really interesting though.  I only saw this for the first time a couple of months ago presented as an introductory physics lesson problem (tells you where my physics study level is at).  I had not seen the video before. 

Nice post. 

Humbugger
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 02:00:29 PM by Humbugger »

Joh70

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #680 on: September 10, 2007, 10:56:41 AM »
On german Wikipedia the description is a little different:

"Die Brachistochrone ist die schnellste Verbindung zweier Punkte durch eine Bahn,
auf der ein Massenpunkt unter dem Einfluss der Gravitationskraft reibungsfrei hinabgleitet."
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone)

Means, there is one optimal acceleration of mass thru gravity leading to the lowest possible friction. The result is a higher speed.

IT IS ONLY AN OPTIMIZATION, like having better bearings or so. Only friction is lowered.

I saw a physical demonstration on a quiz-show on TV (http://www.daserste.de/programm/tvtipp.asp?datum=18.08.2007). The answer was proofed with following result: Masses in a free fall reach the floor at the same time, although on mass is dropped verticaly and the other mass is pushed horizontaly first!

So its only about friction on rails. No additional energy is gained, which isn't there on the other strait rail and being converted to heat.

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #681 on: September 10, 2007, 12:27:58 PM »
I think i need to try one last time... 
Cant get any clearer than this..

 Assuming both teeters have the same leverage and travel,  which
one will output more energy?


 also note, that Stephans vid shows an example too.   When both
balls hit the back wall of the rails - the entire assembly moves forwards.

srawofni

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • WATER FUEL
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #682 on: September 10, 2007, 01:11:02 PM »
Hello All,

Today a ran a computer simulation of the Chas Campbell gravity wheel.
SolidWorks 2007 can simulate gravity on mechanical assemblies and I have used
this package to build and test over 50 similar devices. I have found it to be very reliable
and accurate for this type of testing. The end result was the wheel is neutral with
6 weights left on the inner ? and 2 weights right on the outer ?. It does not turn.
(Inner diameter 1000mm - Outer diameter 2000mm)
Remove weight from either side and it moved as expected.
I'll have to brush up on my maths as I thought this one had a slight chance of working.
Cheers 
srawofni

Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #683 on: September 10, 2007, 01:56:17 PM »
@srawofni

That's way cool.  Stefan may want you to change it to 4:1 since he started the whole fracas about 2:1 being too small.  I'm jealous...I've got an old SW2001 with no gravity or animation...you guys have all the fun!

@wattsup

A 100% on the puzzle.  "Curved Hypoteni"  (is that the plural of hypotenuses?)

Don't want me to comment on Back EMF huh?  Embarrassed?  Gonna anyway...

The term has been abused to describe both the "Reverse Voltage Flyback" of energy from a suddenly opened inductance (mag field collapse) and the opposing "Counter EMF" of the building field against the current creating it. 

I had confusion for years about the terminology.  What matters is that you know that both phenomena happen and what to expect.  I prefer to avoid BEMF as a term just because it has been so abused and confused so often.  I like flyback energy and counter emf...they're more descriptive.

Humbugger

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #684 on: September 10, 2007, 03:10:54 PM »
@srawofni,

Cool!
But why did it take it so long?!! (It?s a rhetorical question, though. I?ve spend most part of the last might, not because of the math ?that was the easy part- but because it needed long explanations...  ::) And now I?m very sleepy.)

Excellent work!
Welcome aboard and please stay close!
Some problems keep changing here much faster than an army of ppl can solve them.

Here is my advice, or at least from now on I?ll work this way: do a simulation, calculus, whatever you need to do only after the device is clearly defined and only after getting a firm promise that it is final; no 'minor adjustments or variations' accepted. My 2 cents.

Now you can start preparing the simulation for an external radius of 4.  ;D
And don?t forget the above advice!  ;)

Tinu

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #685 on: September 10, 2007, 03:21:02 PM »
Ohhh, I almost forgot!

Prepare adding also
...the SMOTs, the Magnetic ICs, the Pulse Lead-out Anti-Graviton cylinders and the Magnesium Grignard Reactors.

Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #686 on: September 10, 2007, 04:01:21 PM »
@tinu

"Some problems keep changing here much faster than an army of ppl can solve them.

Here is my advice, or at least from now on I?ll work this way: do a simulation, calculus, whatever you need to do only after the device is clearly defined and only after getting a firm promise that it is final; no 'minor adjustments or variations' accepted. My 2 cents."

 ;D  Problem is, no functional overunity device is ever clearly defined as yet in all of history, so you might get a little out of practice on your skills if you follow your own advice there, pardner!

You sound like me after my first "flat rate package quoted" freelance consulting design project.  I foolishly told the guy he didn't have to pay me until it was finished and working to specs, but he changed the specs a week before I was done...nine times!  It's a real dilemma when you end up working for free...at least you're going in knowing that!

Humb

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #687 on: September 10, 2007, 06:12:11 PM »
srawofni put up a still picture of a wheel.   I wouldnt call that a defeat.
Sorry, but I dont trust anything that gets posted as fact.  Anyone can
change data and manipulate and fake things, because of vested
interests.

 Besides the software not working 100%, he didnt take into consideration
the angled drop pushes, as Ive stated time and time again.


shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #688 on: September 10, 2007, 06:55:26 PM »
srawofni put up a still picture of a wheel.   I wouldnt call that a defeat.
Sorry, but I dont trust anything that gets posted as fact.  Anyone can
change data and manipulate and fake things, because of vested
interests.

 Besides the software not working 100%, he didnt take into consideration
the angled drop pushes, as Ive stated time and time again.



You keep bringing up these drops.  You must understand there is no free ride with them.  The cost to the drop is that the ball could have already been in the wheel, but instead it waited in position for the wheel to lower to accommodate the angle of the drop.  In the simulated scenario, there is no drop because we assume the ball is magically teleported into position, so there is no reason to angle it in, but nothing is lost this way.  True, the extra momentum of the dropping ball is not imparted to the wheel, but instead the wheel gets to enjoy the benefit of the ball's weight sooner.

And please, no offers to drop a keg on my head or boulder on my back.  :)

zero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Chas Campbell free power motor
« Reply #689 on: September 10, 2007, 09:03:57 PM »
The ball is NOT waiting - it IS IN THE WHEEL!!!

  As in my pic above.. you can see the ramp is PART of the
lever,  which is the same as Chas's wheel setup.

 When the ball rolls on his down-slanted PVC "intake" pipes, Gravity is still pulling it down
with the same force.   But additionally, when the ball hits the waiting spot - it imparts
the balls extra energy to the wheel.     

 The ball has gained energy from rotation, motion, acceleration, and the ability for near
free-fall speed (which the wheel would otherwise restrict).   


 Just like my pic,  the teeter which has the ramp will gain more energy output.
And just like my pic where THE RAMP IS PART OF THE MOVEMENT DEVICE,
(IE:  ITS NOT WAITING TO IMPART GRAVITY!!!)  Chas's device works the same
way!!!

 To say otherwise is a rejection of physics!