Chas Campbell free power motor

[helmut]

@ Gravitar
Here ist another Design.
That will not work..............

[ltseung888]

The Theory behind the Chas Campbell device.

Congratulation to Chas Campbell on the successful demonstration of his device.  Thank you to Ash and others in confirming and promoting it.  Some may still question the Source of Energy of his device.  Some may still try to raise the CoE Roadblock.  We can apply the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory to explain the source of energy of the Chas Campbell Device.  It used Pulsed Rotation to Lead Out gravitational energy.   The efficiency of the device will depend on:
(1)   Rotational speed
(2)   Number of Pulse Points
(3)   Mass of the Flywheel (Cylinder is better)
(4)   Radius of the Flywheel or Cylinder
(5)   The feedback mechanism (Pulse at the right frequency)
(6)   Angle of tilt (Output power decreases if axle tilted from horizontal and becomes zero when vertical.)

Tsing Hua University in China worked with an old Chinese Inventor and had a video taken on January 4, 1996.  That invention could magnify Input Electricity 30 times and had been used in a factory environment for over 11 years.  The following information may be helpful.

Explanation of the Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier Video
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg46560.html#msg46560

The video edited by Ms. Forever Yuen
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg46108.html#msg46108

Accompanied text from Forever:

I have also uploaded the electrical energy magnifier from TsingHua University. 

http://rapidshare.com/files/51563146/tsinghua7846-8069.mpg.html

1. The video was done on 4 January 1996.

2. The electrical input was magnified 30 times.

3. The input energy was A.C. power from the local power company. The power was fed to a starting motor. The starting motor is then connected via a belt arrangement to the energy magnifier.

4. The energy magnifier consisted of three cylinders.(The Chas Campbell Device from Australia used three wheels.)

5.The output energy was used to support the entire factory.

6.No output energy was fed back to input as that mechanism had not been perfected.

Lawrence Tseung
Success of the Chas Campbell Device Leads Out the confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory one more time.

[hartiberlin]

Hi Lawrence,
many thanks for posting this video and all your explanation.

Well, what did happen since 1996 with this invention ?
Why hasn?t it being made more public ?

Unfortunately form this video you can not see any
output versus input measurements, so
we have to believe you that it is the way you claim it.

Is anybody working now still on this principle in China ?
Will there soon be more convincing presentations in China ?

Many thanks for bringing news from the China energy research to
over here.
As China is a very big country and is in need now for very big energy
to continue its modernisation growth
it would be good if your industry would use green energy instead of polluting
fossil fuel energy...

So please try to spread the word in China about free energy and alternative
technology by inviting many Chinese people who can speak English
to come over here.
Many thanks for your great efforts.
Regards, Stefan.

[Humbugger]

"I just talked a few minutes to Ash on his mobile phone,
but the connection was very bad from Australia to Germany,
but what I understood was this:

He just was at Chas?s place and measured the input to the 800 Watts
drive motor
to be about 6 Amps and
the output of the alternator was about 10 amps.
(probably at the same voltage)

But I did not fully understand, how long they did run it this way
and he talked something about pulsing the output or input.
He said, they did run it with a hacksaw as the load and another
load thing I did not understand what it was..."

So far, unless I have missed something, this is the only report about any test results on the Charles Campbell motor. It is a second-hand report taken over a garbled cell phone. The only thing apparent from this report is that all the discussion and plans regarding proper measurement technique were just tossed out.  I am waiting for some clarification of the methods and measurement results before reaching any conclusions one way or the other, but the report here is not at all promising in that regard.

It seems, however, to others, this preliminary report from Stefan, complete with at least one huge and well-noted assumption "(probably at the same voltage)" and including no information regarding the real power output or the resistive/reactive qualities of the loads used or the duration of the tests or anything else having to do with the actual energy efficiency, this report alone is considered sufficient to draw the most certain and optimistic and earth-shattering conclusions!

"Congratulation to Chas Campbell on the successful demonstration of his device.  Thank you to Ash and others in confirming and promoting it."  L. Tseung

"Success of the Chas Campbell Device Leads Out the confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory one more time."   L. Tseung

"Well, so from your explanation Chas' machine does achieve 166% efficiency when putting in 800W."  Iosh

And finally...from Mr. Tseung again...from his last post in his own thread...

"Chas Campbell Leads Out the first conclusive OU demonstration supported by the overunity forum members."

All I am asking for here is that test results and measurements be gathered and analyzed using reasonable levels of scientific technique before any startling conclusions are drawn.   So far, the reported data and speculation in no way justify any of these conclusions.  Is that not clear to all?  Are there any truly scientific researchers here?

It is getting very hard for me to believe that there is a genuine interest in doing any real science; in finding out what really works and what doesn't.  It seems more and more that any untested or clearly mis-tested OU assertion whatsoever is automatically believed and then regurgitated as fact for the purpose of "promoting free energy". 

I'm all for a good free energy invention, but only if it actually works!  Otherwise, it won't be useful to anyone but those making their livings as "promoters", now will it?

Can we at least try to hold off on the incredible conclusions until we receive some actual test results and some idea of the test conditions used?  When I see how rapidly and prematurely certain people leap to enormous and certain conclusions based on unclear and incomplete information, it gives me much reason to doubt the soundness of all their other conclusions and the accuracy of their reports in general!  Does it not effect you that way as well?   Let's at least try to use a little bit of scientific method!

Humbugger

[Iosh]

Dear Humbugger,

Did I start to do the happy dance or something? It's kind of worrisome that, from that plain commentary you quoted, you understand that I am praising the victory of mankind over the energy problems or whatever. Don't start seeing giants where there's only windmills.