GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 502949
  • *Total Topics: 15032
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator  (Read 130368 times)

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« on: September 09, 2007, 06:42:30 PM »
Ok, I am starting this new thread to get away from the Chas Campbell Perpetual Motion Wheel cause there is just too much clutter and blah blah.

I put this in the RV section because there is no section on the board dealing with no-name brand non-RV motor generators, at least I could not find one.

I have also removed the prevous text below figuring those that needed to read it have done so. there is no point to leave it continuously.

I am putting the original design of Chas' Flywheel Generator (CFG) below and will add any pretinent build information here as it is identified.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 06:56:22 AM by wattsup »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« on: September 09, 2007, 06:42:30 PM »

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2007, 06:43:35 PM »
@Ash and @Chas

I have taken time and looked over the design of the fylwheel system as shown in the figure given by @Hans via someone at Panacea (I think).

First and foremost the design does not show enough bearings. Each wheel should have its bearings on both sides of the pulleys, plus the drive and generator should be on a bearing via a coupling. The pulleys should never be on the motors as you do not want to create any horizontal or side stress on the rotor bearings. You want that motor to only turn without side stress, and, you don't want the pulleys to move one iota.

OK, from what I have observed with flywheels, the main thing is to isolate it as much as possible from both the drive and the generator.

Currently, the flywheel is going directly to a 9" pulley then to a 4.5" pulley and in my view, this is where the design has its weakness.

As soon as there is drag on the Generator, with a 9" to 4.5" you will still feel the drag. You have to put a smaller pulley on the output side of the flywheel so you have the easiest rotations possible and gear upwards from there. This ensures the flywheel always has strength and is not directly coupled so close to the drag.

Please take a look at the designs I have prepared as alternatives along with the Chas' original design. Plus you can see the rpms per pulley.

Alternative #1 uses most of the current pulley sizes so this could be an easy modification.

Alternative #2 is for people who may want to start from scratch. The 3-6-9 uses only 3", 6" and 9" pulleys. Seems very interesting.  You can call it the ChasTeslian Wheel cause Tesla liked three's and I'm sure he would like Chas.

The main idea behind the alternatives is that they ensure the drag from the generator is as far away from the flywheel as possible. The gearing gives the whole system strength to overcome the drag. You would have to start the system with the generator at off position to get up to speed then connect the generator and gradually increase power until you reach your maximum potential. I would not use an RV setup as you will require the full torque of the PM.

Now these alternatives are based on the PM with an RPM of 1430. If you change the RPM (hint hint) you would need to change the pulley sizes. IDEALLY, the system should have a higher rpm PM, looking to bring the flywheel in the 5000 rpm range, then let any drag bring it down to 3200. Right now with a 1430 rpm motor, this is not possible. I imagine these gearings would also apply to 60hz with slighlty higher RPM but I did not crunch the numbers.

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2007, 07:27:08 AM »
Actually, if I decided to make a CFG unit, I would probably not use a generator at first. I would use a positive displacement water pump and loop water from a tank with a flow meter, pressure gauge and flow control valve. This way I could get my performance results in GPM/PSI which can be translated to HP/WATTS.

First, the water pump could easily be coupled to the Prime Mover to get a direct 1:1 performance reading. Then it could be placed on each pulley section to measure the different results, all the way through to the final output side. Once I would have these results, this would then show if the system produced more than the PM direct. I could then choose the right generator to match the system, and/or  make changes in pulley sizes to see if it can be improved further.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2007, 07:27:08 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline rensseak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2007, 08:43:07 AM »
@Ash and @Chas

First and foremost the design does not show enough bearings.


The more bearing the more friction and losses.

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2007, 10:21:18 AM »
G'day all,

For those of you that are interested in this technology there is another thread on this forum called  General flywheel questions started by ken_nyal that might be relevant.

Personally I have doubts that any new discoveries will be made in relation to flywheels. The technology is old and very well understood by science. No-one has in several hundred years of research ever reported over unity in relation to flywheels, no credible report that is.

But have a go just the same, every opportunity for learning is worth something.

Hans von Lieven

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2007, 10:21:18 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2007, 12:00:38 PM »
I share Hans' opinion of the potential. 

I'll keep my comments very short and try to stay out of it here for the most part. 

If I see any snake-oil salesman claims of great arcing torrents of free energy based on obtuse inaccurate suspicious output peak pulse power levels into reactive loads measured with rusted fish scales, Ouija boards and pulse-clutched deProny brakes, I will probably chime in with some little tirade or two.

Please watch out for the hocus pocus time/power/energy/pulsed output vs. steady input shell game.  There is plenty of opportunity to fool yourselves and "the audience" into thinking you've got OU when really you're at 53% energy efficiency.

No pretending VAR are watts and no comparing peak instantaneous output pulses against average continuous input...you know...the regular flim flam stuff. 

Measure the total actual useful forward energy flow with good trustworthy instruments, correct loads and proper techniques and old Humbugger will just sit and watch.

 


Humbugger Out


And remember...there are prizes!   Red and black stars for bad boys; gold stars for good boys!  And girls, too!
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 03:13:02 PM by Humbugger »

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2007, 03:14:08 PM »
@Hum

I get what you're saying about test results and this is of great concern to me also. This is why I am thinking that we should not base tests on a generator output because each model generator will perform differently.

This is why I am proposing that the generator be removed from the test and instead to use a test bench as shown below, or as can be convened mutually.

Water is water, pressure is pressure and flow is flow.

Would this be an acceptable method where the results could be measured and compared apples to apples?

Also, the flywheel could be designed in a way to permit adding or removing layers for more or less weight to test under different conditions.

Replication cost would not be that great so I may decide to build one. But I'll have to look at this closer for a while before I decide.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2007, 03:14:08 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2007, 07:11:26 PM »

I believe that a Wimshurst electrostatic generator
has a COP>1 similar to that of a heatpump, and like
the heatpump and the freon based dipping bird it uses the
environment to supply energy in this case a continuing source
of non-ionized  matter. If the environment cannot make sufficient
non-ionized  matter available then environment local to machine
undergoes what some people euphemistically would call a
'radiant energy event' a general electrostatic breakdown of
the nearby environmental/and the machine's own, insulators.
Ionized matter is somewhat of an unusual form of matter
in that it can simultaneously be considered to be in surplus,
ie. have an electrostatic charge and also to be in deficit,
ie. have a lack of electrons depending on which operational
point of view one wishes to take. Electrostatic charge is
measured in voltage and number of electrons or coulombs
charge, while electrodynamic instantaneous energy ie.
power is measured in volts multiplied by amperes or watts.

The Testatika machine is such a self running wimshurst
electrostatic type generator that uses a vacuum tube
radio frequency oscillator to create a HV/RF/AC signal
that is stepped down using RF transformers, rectified
and DC stepped down again through an inverse capacitive
voltage multiplier (divider). So the Testatika machine
runs itself and supplies energy run user loads without
a direct source of energy but using the environment
to recycle the matter containing the energy it receives.
Unlike a heatpump though, its energy is already in
upgraded form, electrodynamic potential static electricity
and requires only simple relatively efficient systems to
downconvert electrical potential energy to the electro-
dynamic form of voltage and current. It is a better basis
then using heat for a self-running system because it energy
does not have to run through a Carnot cycle heat engine
to be recovered. This machine and others like them are
considered to be within the 'free electron machine'
classification. While I think these work according to
above model I currently fail to see any reason to call
any of these machines Zero Point Energy (ZPE) producers.
 
Some of the Bedini Motors self run using magnetic
wheels rotating in air. These rotating wheels create a
static electric charge. The School Girl Motor which is
Bedini's most famous self running system and actually
has three different PMM energy supplies built into the
one unit. (1) They are magnetic power field mills, taking
energy from other machine's stray magnetic fields due
to its open field coil construction techniques. (2) They
receive static electrical charge due to their wheel
with its magnet drive coil also performing the function
of electrostatic brush. (3) And finally they get the
majority of their power from a pulse process that
causes gain to occur inside acid/lead storage batteries.
Bedini calls this (2) 'radiant energy' but us electrodynamics
paradigm-2 people know it as static electric charge.

Having intentional static electricity flowing in circuitry
has it's downside though, in that it makes life difficult
for instrumentation. It will tend to damage digital meters
and computer interfaced instruments. So you often see these
experimenters resorting to electromechanical meters because
they are far less susceptible to static electric damage.
Capacitors too, absolutely do not like any applied voltages
beyond their working voltage so SGM circuitry often lacks
capacitors that would assist with amplifier stability problems.

Charles Campbell Overunity Motor Generator most probably operates
in the same way. Wheels spinning in air and belt friction produce
and move static electric charge. The transducer (the thing that
converts static electric charge to electrical current) is either
the motor, the generator, or especially acid/lead storage batteries
(if present). These systems tend to stop operating overunity if they
have a metal frame which is properly connected to an earth
ground.

Sorry for the length of this post but a lot of the above
information seems not to be known and often remains hidden
from most experimenters, so I thought I would lay it all out.

Mark S. Coffman

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2007, 08:43:56 PM »
thanks mark, that's a nice perspective.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2007, 08:43:56 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2007, 10:20:39 PM »
@mscoffman

Thank you also for your kind information and also welcome to the overunity.com forum.

As you can tell, we are a bunch of die-hards, often stubborn and mostly enthusiastic in the endeavors for free energy systems.

From your information, if I have understood it well enough, there is a possibility that static charges are being generated by turning wheels, etc., and that this may be picked up by the motor or generator. Although this type of potential gain in energy is not a bad thing in itself if you take the perspective of a us who work in OU, since any energy from any source is welcome, this energy should not be obtainable in one condition and not in another, since the apparatus in question could be used in varying methods with the expectation of performance in all circumstances.

From this, I am therefore more inclined to reduce this static charge by grounding all metals parts. By doing so this would reduce the influence of such charges on the system, therefore permitting to measure the performance based on the actual rotational/mass gain of such a system.

So, we should take this into consideration and add a line to the build specs calling for a grounding of the metals, or designing the system with metal supports, etc., that can be easily grounded.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 10:49:29 PM by wattsup »

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2007, 10:24:43 PM »
G'day all,

Found on another thread, thought it appropriate for here.

Actually, Nasa have developed flywheel storage systems as possible replacements to batteries. They use magnetic bearings, and run in a vacuum. The report 50000 rpm. the limiting factor seems to be the tensile strength of the flywheels, which if exceeded, blow up, sending shrapnel flying like bullets. consequently they are encased in heavy steel cylinders and buried underground. They also have an efficiency rating of only 90%.





Hans von Lieven

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2007, 10:24:43 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2007, 03:37:48 AM »
Hi mate the RV is now coupled to his set up, ill have some results for you soon, we have geared it down to spin at the same speed as the RV motor is 2800 RPM, his is 1430 or some thing.
Also  do you want me to post the Gen EXTRACTION circuits here? let me know mate, thanks for the thread.


Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2007, 04:33:08 AM »
Here's a corporate video showing high tech flywheel usage as a battery..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkQ23jmPPnA

@Ash

Hi Ash, good move.

I imagine the Generator Extraction Circuit you will be using should provide a non VAR current, I hope cause you know Hum. He will look at this with a fine tooth comb and if there are any discrepencies, we can have another round of RV blues.

So I think it is best we wait until your tests have been done and we can convene on the results before putting up the circuit as this may create undue confusion, should there have to be any mods to the circuit after your tests. Let's take this one slow and easy.

Do you know if Chas had a chance to see the designs above. I would be curious to know of his comments, especially to confirm if the original design is indicative of his true orginal design. Also, Please document the changes you made to Chas' original set-up so we can keep track here and I can make a new design.

Based on your prelimienry tests, this will give more information to consider on a potential replication or varitions thereof. But please keep the numbers this time, OU or not. Every test pushes the device to reveals its secrets. The more info on hand, the better we can decide aftewards on any next moves.

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2007, 04:49:49 AM »
I share Hans' opinion of the potential. 

I'll keep my comments very short and try to stay out of it here for the most part. 

If I see any snake-oil salesman claims of great arcing torrents of free energy based on obtuse inaccurate suspicious output peak pulse power levels into reactive loads measured with rusted fish scales, Ouija boards and pulse-clutched deProny brakes, I will probably chime in with some little tirade or two.

Please watch out for the hocus pocus time/power/energy/pulsed output vs. steady input shell game.  There is plenty of opportunity to fool yourselves and "the audience" into thinking you've got OU when really you're at 53% energy efficiency.

No pretending VAR are watts and no comparing peak instantaneous output pulses against average continuous input...you know...the regular flim flam stuff. 

Measure the total actual useful forward energy flow with good trustworthy instruments, correct loads and proper techniques and old Humbugger will just sit and watch.

 


Humbugger Out


And remember...there are prizes!   Red and black stars for bad boys; gold stars for good boys!  And girls, too!

Just to clarify for the board, as i don't address this user name.

The VAR and reactive power in the RV is measured and extracted using circuitry which taps the RF nodes/resonance, and or the peak sine waves through his non conventional understanding.

All explanations of this [How its done measured plus how we don't series load resonance] are in the compilations. These circuits are from TEST RESULTS which have reported extraction of resonance or RF or reactive power , the circuits tested are posted in the compilations.

The loads were batteries [resistive/mechanical] this is posted in the compilations, We already stated that the duty cycle is needed (as per Stefans advice) to Confirm the pulsed out puts and made this very clear.

so again this suspicious or un educated person, could be fooling U, besides himself.
Beware of ANY Oil men/wanna be/ unknowingly working for them/arm chair skeptics or any one in between  who state the RV prony does not work based on none of their test results, or that the claim to know how the extraction process is done based on no knowledge of whats being done and no test results by them.


this person or persons are not qualified to test and or report the RV, he/she does not under stand it, nore has he/she built it and or should try. if you take this advice, do not expect any results.
or expect any sympathy from me you have been warned.

ashtweth
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 05:56:49 AM by ashtweth_nihilisti »

Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2007, 05:09:00 AM »
Here's a corporate video showing high tech flywheel usage as a battery..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkQ23jmPPnA

@Ash

Hi Ash, good move.

I imagine the Generator Extraction Circuit you will be using should provide a non VAR current, I hope cause you know Hum. He will look at this with a fine tooth comb and if there are any discrepencies, we can have another round of RV blues.

So I think it is best we wait until your tests have been done and we can convene on the results before putting up the circuit as this may create undue confusion, should there have to be any mods to the circuit after your tests. Let's take this one slow and easy.

Do you know if Chas had a chance to see the designs above. I would be curious to know of his comments, especially to confirm if the original design is indicative of his true orginal design. Also, Please document the changes you made to Chas' original set-up so we can keep track here and I can make a new design.

Based on your prelimienry tests, this will give more information to consider on a potential replication or varitions thereof. But please keep the numbers this time, OU or not. Every test pushes the device to reveals its secrets. The more info on hand, the better we can decide aftewards on any next moves.

There will be no RV [OU] blues if you stick to the replication data i recommend,
prony, and the neon switcher and or Freq driving a PM Gen.

>So I think it is best we wait until your tests have been done and we can convene on the results before putting up the circuit as this may create undue confusion, should there have to be any mods to the circuit after your tests. Let's take this one slow and easy.

This is up to you, we have many extraction circuits already done to test, ill post the results here, and leave them till after the test.

>Do you know if Chas had a chance to see the designs above. I would be curious to know of his comments, especially to confirm if the original design is indicative of his true orginal design. Also, Please document the changes you made to Chas' original set-up so we can keep track here and I can make a new design.

Yes i have sent them to Chas and i can get this information for you on the 15th easy, maybe you can use this info, and draw a new one? then compare it with photos of his original?

"First build a flywheel that will produce at least twice as much energy as you need to drive your alternator when finished you should have trouble seeing it moving as it runs in its own space, After a few trial runs i built one by having a h-t steel shaft keeyed each end before a flange or a disc was slipped along to the center and welded the flange was then drilled and tapped to take studs, using a router i cut a circle 600mm in diameter out of custom board with a hole in the center to take the shaft this was attached to the flange using studs with washers and lock nuts the second circle had a hole in the center large enough to fit over the flange this was fitted from the other end and screwed to the first wheel by doing this i could try diffrent speeds and drives until i was satisfied i had a combination that would work with what i had which was a .075 hp single phase electric motor and a 3.5 kva alternator,The flywheel ended up being 72mm thick and 590mm in diametor i then fitted a steel band around my wheel this added more power my theory being if you create centrifugal force you can drive anything as long as the wheel keeps spinning I ended up with an alternator fitted with a 4.5inch pulley driven by a 9inch pulley the alternator speed was 3146rpm at that speed it was easy to run electrical applicances for a period now to the most important part to keep the wheel spinning"

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/res/Default/ESS_PasteBitmap0003.png

>Based on your prelimienry tests, this will give more information to consider on a potential replication or varitions thereof. But please keep the numbers this time, OU or not. Every test pushes the device to reveals its secrets. The more info on hand, the better we can decide aftewards on any next moves.

Yes of cause thanks To Stefan the numbers will be easy to confirm..






 

OneLink