Author Topic: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator (Read 173367 times)

Humbugger · « **Reply #15 on:** September 11, 2007, 06:50:26 AM »

I have read and viewed nearly everything Ashtweth's group Panacea BOCAF has published. I've been consistently disappointed by a lack of good reporting on forward energy flow. The rest of it is not coherent or meaningful to me. Possibly that is my own shortcoming; obviously I don't think so.

If other fellows really understand this stuff and find meaning, useful knowledge and substance there, more power to you all! It seems that my Earth-bound comments, my pointed questions and requests for hard data make Ashtweth and a few others feel very hostile and uncomfortable and are vehemently despised.

I intend to keep my future observations short and to the point if I offer them at all. I have a new policy on purely skeptical posts where I don't have any questions to ask. It's described below, in the signature area.

"Where reality-checks cannot be tolerated, no advance of useful knowledge occurs and charlatans eventually prevail." ~ Humbugger

ashtweth_nihilisti · « **Reply #16 on:** September 11, 2007, 07:12:12 AM »

To Clarify for the Board. (and those who haven't read the compilations)

The measurement technique of the Neon switcher into charging a secondary battery (for free) and construction details is clearly presented and can be understood via conventional engineering, how ever whats going on cannot.

The measurement technique of the prony break test and construction details is clearly presented and can be understood via conventional engineering, how ever whats going on cannot.
Those that wish to replicate and confirm results are welcome.

This information is presented in the compilations and is based on replicated reports.
Our results will be added shortly.

regards
ashtweth

Mem · « **Reply #17 on:** September 11, 2007, 09:32:54 AM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 11, 2007, 06:50:26 AM

I have read and viewed nearly everything Ashtweth's group has published. I've simply been disappointed by a lack of honest reporting of any real forward energy flow. The rest of it is not coherent or meaningful to me. Possibly that is my own shortcoming; obviously I don't think so.

If other fellows really understand this stuff and find meaning, useful knowledge and substance there, more power to you all! It seems that my Earth-bound hardnosed comments, my pointed questions and requests for hard data make Ashtweth and others feel very uncomfortable and are unwelcome.

I intend to keep my future observations very short and to the point if I offer them at all. Where reality-checks cannot be tolerated, no advance of useful knowledge occurs.

Humbugger

<<Hum,
Don't take it personal when some one comments on quotes. Without the refiners fire we can't saparate gold from impuritys...

You said: [I have read and viewed nearly everything Ashtweth's group has published. I've simply been disappointed by a lack of honest reporting of any real forward energy flow. The rest of it is not coherent or meaningful to me.]

I personaly and stronly feel that, you post yous comments without any hesitation what so ever and let the chips fall where they may!
This is an open form, where "all " creativity should flow without any restriction or hesitation.

"reality-checks" are like a quality controll and we can't effort not to have it!

Mem>>

Humbugger · « **Reply #18 on:** September 11, 2007, 10:22:00 AM »

@Mem

Thanks for your kind words of courage. I am severely outnumbered but not intimidated.

Humbugger

Humbugger · « **Reply #19 on:** September 11, 2007, 10:38:22 AM »

Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 11, 2007, 07:12:12 AM

To Clarify for the Board. (and those who haven't read the compilations)

The measurement technique of the Neon switcher into charging a secondary battery (for free) and construction details is clearly presented and can be understood via conventional engineering, how ever whats going on cannot.

The measurement technique of the prony break test and construction details is clearly presented and can be understood via conventional engineering, how ever whats going on cannot.
Those that wish to replicate and confirm results are welcome.

This information is presented in the compilations and is based on replicated reports.
Our results will be added shortly.

regards
ashtweth

What I said stands firmly after reading again these references: "I've simply been disappointed by a lack of honest reporting of real forward energy flow." Page 30 describes how to test the neon switcher.

There is no statement there of how much energy is expected, claimed or actually delivered into the battery. This is not an adequate measurement technique for a device whose only claimed attribute is delivering energy to a battery. You are supposed to listen and observe shaft speed to see if this huge 7.5HP motor bogs down while you supply an unmeasured amount of so-called free energy to an unspecified battery.

Page 23, where a Phil Wood circuit is described and tested is no better. One sentence about testing, only one sentence: "Under test, driving a fan, the motor draws a maximum of 117W and a variable speed 600W drill was used for the DC load". Period... No statement as to how much energy was being consumed by this drill anywhere or if it was even turned on, for how long, at what speed and under what mechanical load. Zip...just the worst-case max power rating read off the nameplate.

It is exactly this kind of testing and reporting that I have consistently complained about. These are not isolated examples, this is the norm for Ashtweth's stuff and for lots of others making audacious claims. Stating the nameplate rating on a tool used as a load is not an adequate measurement technique.

Throughout the Panacea material, there is a clear and unmistakable implication if not the outright claim of overunity performance being repeatedly achieved. This is combined with a consistent lack of valid measurement technique and the absence of reported test data. What's up with that?

The "replication" spoken of in genuine scientific research involves testing to see if you can observe the same results. If no results are specificied by the original presenter, what purpose is there in replicating?

Humbugger

P.S. I am not going to make a career of blasting Ashtweth's methods here. I have said my bit and I stand on it. I hope Stefan and some of the others here will try to keep him in touch with reasonable testing and reporting methods. If I see something outrageous from now on I'll just post the terse quote and one

Then only if someone inquires as to why exactly I'm rolling my eyeballs will I venture to explain. Think of the bandwidth Stefan will save!

Humbugger · « **Reply #20 on:** September 11, 2007, 05:06:10 PM »

Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 11, 2007, 04:49:49 AM

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.

rMuD · « **Reply #21 on:** September 11, 2007, 06:41:42 PM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 11, 2007, 10:22:00 AM

@Mem

Thanks for your kind words of courage. I am severely outnumbered but not intimidated.

Humbugger

Sorry for abandoning you

rMuD · « **Reply #22 on:** September 11, 2007, 06:51:22 PM »

My money is on the MIB is going to take the device on the 13th.. the initial test was that it was a bad driving motor.. and the rotoverter was coming to the rescue on the 15th

rated Watts on the sticker are the worst possible case of worn out nearly dead device, and motors it's start current needed.. they had a Watt meter on it, and clearly showed the real power in/out

I'm kinda sad that right now there are no Cambell Flywheel machines for sale on ebay right now, Guess everyone heard that their rotary UPS was overunity, and are hording them for free power

mscoffman · « **Reply #23 on:** September 11, 2007, 07:06:38 PM »

Humbugger and others in this forum topic;

You are missing an important technical detail in your discussion!

Medium voltage pulsed current at approximately 2x times the voltage or above on an acid/lead storage battery causes
a process identical to *nuclear cold fusion* to occur in the battery. In a battery, this extra energy vests itself as
additional charge in the battery. Period. The actual pulse waveform is very noncritical. Very little net energy needs
to be transfered in this recharge pulse signal. This is why acid/lead storage batteries make a good transducer of static
electricity. This doesn't have anything to do with instrumentation mis-reading or mis-calculation. Cold fusion is not
accepted by many scientists because of its lack of diagnostic radiation...but that is just tough because it is still
occurring in batteries.

It is postulated that this takes place in the water (which is naturally deuturiated) in the electrolyte
of the acid/lead battery so other type batteries/capacitors may not necessarily show this same feature.
In the concentrated low impedance electrolyte of a battery my feeling is that a small amount of electrostatic
charge assists in the reaction. Most likley some trace amounts of tritium (radioactive hydrogen isotope,
half life=12yrs) remains as ash in this process and is not supressed. Actually this is the same process that
occurs in the HHO experiments and many other types which are showing net energy gain. You will notice
the similarity of an acid/lead storage battery to the Fleischman/Pons hydrolysis experiment. This is no
accident. Fleischman and Pons got it wrong because the process has nothing to do with loading of hydrogen
into a metal matrix is has to do with secondary bubble formation on the surface of metals which I call cavitation
bubbling - that is what the recharge pulse signal is controlling. I postulate that the diagnostic radiation is
being suppressed by Quantum Mechanics first principles as the vacuum bubble ordering shrinks towards
the zero point. In other words Zero Point Suppression of Radioactive Effects - ZPSRE rather than ZPE.
As far as I am concerned The conservation of matter/energy law is still in effect as I have seen nothing that
seriously that contradicts it. Many other operating overunity experiments have this mechanism at their
center either acknowledged or unacknowledged.

But then everyone already knew these things right?

Mark S. Coffman

wattsup · « **Reply #24 on:** September 11, 2007, 07:19:34 PM »

Geez, I had prepared a post on this question but left for the office before I posted it. So here goes.

RV or not RV, drag is drag. (Taken from Shakespeares' Motorolisis.lol)

Chas Quote
I ended up with an alternator fitted with a 4.5inch pulley driven by a 9inch pulley the alternator speed was 3146 rpm at that speed it was easy to run electrical applicances for a period now to the most important part to keep the wheel spinning.
Chas unquote

Chas said it all right here. The 9 to 4.5 inch is direct to the gen. If the gen produces 1 of drag, the flywheel will feel 3 or 4 of drag. You have to come out of the flywheel pulley to a larger pulley. Look at Alternative #1 or #2. There is no other way that you will be able to beat the drag.

Also, if you read Tao's thread on BEMF or CEMF, it is clear that BEMF happens simultaneous to current application or production. When you cut the current, you produce flyback. But when you put the current back on, you still produce BEMF which is producing your drag. The best and simplest way to overcome this is by mechanical means if the flywheel is properly configured. Or figure out a way to keep the stator as an open circuit so there is never any drag (did I say that?). Actually Mark S. Coffman was on that thread also and he is now here.

Anyways, time will tell.

But come'on guys, this is not an RV punching session (or cat fight). The object of this is to get Chas' wheel working with or without RV and your dicussions are already known.

So let's keep focused on the system.

@Ash

Regarding Panacea circuits. Why don't you guys offer them for sale. I will buy one and many others would also. Alot of guys that can reproduce Chas' system know didly squat about how to make the circuit, and they are not about to start. If the circuit could be made with removable chips or tranistors or whatever, etc., these could be easilly replaced if any are blown (given Murphey's Law). Imagine in a year from now if Panacea had 50 or 100 or these circuits sold (all made the same way for constant replication results). That's 50 to 100 people that can do replications and further testing. Alot better then maybe the three or so guys that have managed to make a circuit thus far.

Also, Panacea could publish "RV for Dummies" (not for me hey). Staring you and Hum as the protagonist and antagonist writers. lol. Just jok'in.

Please keep this in mind. Not every system can benefit by RV. Maybe Chas' Flywheel needs pure brute force to push it to the revs and resonance to keep it turning against drag. Maybe the current supplied by RV is to weak. You have to keep an open mind that RV may not always be the do all end all for electric motors. Reducing current draw means you are removing the FULL FORCE of tension on the motor, and this could play against you. So then you have to play around with controlling the generator drag, controlling a clutch, and what else.

We are all in the same boat. If RV was the answer, I would be selling systems now, to an unlimited host of clients and I would be paying Panacea a royalty per unit. So please, let's keep perspective.

So the questions is, do you want to achive OU regardless, or do you want to achieve OU only with RV in all cases.

Tests should be done without and with RV to compare. Also I would recommend that the system be run for at least 30 minutes to take the drive motor temperature with and without RV, as I have seen RV method heat up the motor considerably in my tests when under load.

Chas deserves that we keep clear and objective heads to solve his system.

Best regards.

"Why is it that the most difficult force to overcome in order to reach OU... is ourselves." (a Hmmmmmmmm moment brought to you by wattsup).

Humbugger · « **Reply #25 on:** September 11, 2007, 07:23:44 PM »

@Mark

So then all we need to do apparently is take two batteries and have them pulse one another or even a single battery with a little boost flyback circuit snapping away on itself. The circuit pulls out a certain charge, snaps it back in your special pulsing way and just sits there pumping up the energy in the battery! Take out one, put back two...forever!

Sounds like the overcharge protection circuit will be the hardest part of the design but no worries, mate. Then we just put in dead batteries and pull them out fully charged. I can design the circuitry, no problem.

But what's that got to do with a RotoVator? Certainly, if simply pulsing a battery creates excess energy then one would not need all that iron, steel and copper of the RV's heavy rotating machinery to lug around, would they? I mean that's a pretty inefficient way to get a few pulses if the real source of the excess energy is in just pulse-charging the batteries! I can do much better.

booger

Humbugger · « **Reply #26 on:** September 11, 2007, 07:33:45 PM »

Quote from: rMuD on September 11, 2007, 06:41:42 PM

Quote from: Humbugger on September 11, 2007, 10:22:00 AM
@Mem

Thanks for your kind words of courage. I am severely outnumbered but not intimidated.

Humbugger

Sorry for abandoning you

No...I meant outnumbered strictly by Ashtweth and The Compilations. Hey...good name for the next nihilistic black metal group...or are they passe now?

bugger

wattsup · « **Reply #27 on:** September 11, 2007, 07:45:35 PM »

@Hum

I think the parallel of what Mark is saying refers to the RV extraction circuit.

Humbugger · « **Reply #28 on:** September 11, 2007, 08:17:13 PM »

Quote from: wattsup on September 11, 2007, 07:45:35 PM

@Hum

I think the parallel of what Mark is saying refers to the RV extraction circuit.

Do you think he's serious? If he is and you are right, which you no doubt are, my question is pertinent. Why have the RV at all?

I have something to say about BEMF too (bad evil mo fo).

BEMF, Flyback Pulse, CEMF, they are all just names we made up. The phenomena behind them all is exactly the same one. Sometimes the mag field is increasing; sometimes decreasing. Sometimes slowly; sometimes quickly. Sometimes the solenoid is open or high impedance, sometimes it's shorted or low Z.

If you really understand the stuff, you don't need to memorize each circumstance set as if it were some unique phenomena. That's where 99% of the BS mystical hoo hah comes in the doors. People don't really "get" how some things work, so they try to memorize knowledge about specific things to expect under specific circumstances and assign names to each of them. What a mess! It's much easier to actually understand what the basic relationships and phenomena are. I never liked memorizing!

humb

rMuD · « **Reply #29 on:** September 11, 2007, 08:25:16 PM »

Quote from: Humbugger on September 11, 2007, 07:33:45 PM

Quote from: rMuD on September 11, 2007, 06:41:42 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 11, 2007, 10:22:00 AM
@Mem

Thanks for your kind words of courage. I am severely outnumbered but not intimidated.

Humbugger

Sorry for abandoning you

No...I meant outnumbered strictly by Ashtweth and The Compilations. Hey...good name for the next nihilistic black metal group...or are they passe now?

bugger

I'm going to stick with worthless commentary til the 15th

hope fully the guys with the watt meters come back out

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator (Read 173367 times)

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

ashtweth_nihilisti

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

Mem

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

rMuD

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

rMuD

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

mscoffman

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

wattsup

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

wattsup

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

Humbugger

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

rMuD

Re: Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator