Chas Campbell free power motor

[shruggedatlas]

Has anyone considered that Chas's wheel is simply plugged into a wall socket and runs off that?  No one has ever been allowed to measure anything as far as input and output - we only have Chas's word for that.  And Chas does not appear to be in any hurry to allow full scrutiny.

I also agree with the astute analysis of a previous poster who mentioned the stark discrepancy between the video on the news channel versus the video on Youtube.  In the news video, there is no huge gravity wheel, so obviously, it is just a red herring.  And if that is not necessary, what makes you think any of the other wheels are?

I personally think you could just get rid of all the wheels, plug a power strip into a wall socket and run your saw and light and fan off that, and you would end up ahead, since you would not have to make the spinny wheels turn.

[FreeEnergy]

hmm, it's a lot easier to roll a heavy round object horizontally than it is to lift vertically yes?

so what if all tubes are always at a horizontal position as the wheel rotates... then all you have to do is roll the round weight inside the tube to cause leverage advantage. maybe a smot to cause the ball to roll would work. the smot is not going uphill so the sticky spot shouldn't be a problem.

[wattsup]

@GraViTaR

All that's happening is A and D are turning B and C. But how?

@Prophmaji

The thing is this;

- the more you got to the center on the left side, the less you have height on the right side.

- the more you go right on the right side, the faster it will be transferred to the left side.

There is a very small portion of left to right, right to left and then that small difference has to be overcome by inertia only if the balls are then at the right weight versus mass rotation.

About the curves, if you had two identical incline points, one straight and one curved, the ball on the curved inclined will go from point A to B faster than on the straight incline, even though it has farther to travel. The curves help the ball move right alot sooner.


@Ash

The thing with comparing a 3/4 hp drill motor to an RV is that you are drilling what exactly.

Try drilling with a 3/4" steel bit into a 1" steel bar. The RV will probably never make it half way or if it does, look at the amps and feel how hot it is getting.

Motors are chosen to do a job. For a drill, this can range from drilling 1/16" into pine wood, or drilling 1" into steel. The jobs vary and for such variations, I find RV to be at two set-points only. Out of that and your toast.

It's like saying put a flow restrictor on your shower. Your body still needs the minimal amount of water to properly rinse itself so weather you take 1 minute or 2 minutes, you will still use that amount of water to rinse yourself.

I used to sell electronic triac based power factor correction systems that were originally invented by NASA and licensed to a few USA makers. We'd put them on drills cause it would provide current proportional to real load conditions. At no load your saving and at full load, your spending juice. But you are doing the job.

Here is the point. Ask Chas if the motor he is using now was the motor he started to use in the beginning. If he tells you things like, Oh no, I started with a 1 hp then went down to a 1/2 hp until finally I found this 3/4 hp to work best, then you should leave it alone and just do the OU investigation as is. The guy spent years getting to this point, and that is the point we want to know about.

1430 rpm means more torque compared to the same motor at 2500 rpm.

Right now I am confused by what you are saying because you're mixing both up.

Please, put he RV aside and concentrate on the original Chas system. The one he says WORKS.

When it's time to replicate, you can then do your RV tests to see the advantage, if any.

What we would like to know is watts in/ watts out and how this was measured.

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

Watts, i have put a thick bit of steal under full load with the RV, ill make a video to show you, it did not buckle, your reasoning is based on you not doing the same experiment, the RV can deliver 3/4 HP more efficiently then any other motor, do the Test yourself, i have done it, id rather you try it FROM WHAT WE LIST IN THE COMPS.

you do not understand the RV like i do and or how it could be used in the Chas system more effectively, or have put it under load by the same configurations we have-ill attempt to show you.

this is why we are having this conversation.

His induction motor some times free wheels with the system, pulsed on and off , or the belt/flywheel takes an occasional load on and off, the RV can handle this more efficiently as its on 3/4 horse power.
The RV doesnt buckle under this, in fact can go over 1HP

The 7.5 HP 60 hertz can deliver 1.8 HP , if your using double coled motors you have the most efficient 1.8 power on demand motor in the world. This i can also show you

We will keep to the original like i said but will also test the RV and compare efficiency under the same conditions, it s as easy as coupling a motor to the drive wheel.

EDIT

the RV also runs cold Watts please read the compilations and review the video
Also stated a zillion times the Torque and HP can be freq driven to improve it

[Humbugger]

Hi Guys just posting an addition to the puled out idea of the the Chas system

"Hi Ash,

Switching off the alternator is a bad idea...as the prime motive of this setup is to generate electricity as and when needed (simplest comparison would be you have lots of food but whats the use when you cant get any into your plate when you really want to eat!).

The simplest way is to have Industrial 3 phase capacitors after the generators to maintain the power factor at 1.0, like we do in our factory by placing higher KVA Capacitors near heavy loading machines to be on the safe side. The current draw is high mostly during the initial startup of these machines so capacitors will do the job. Having an additional fly wheel would take care of it partly but you should also take into account that there are quite many flywheels already being powered for the same reason in this setup itself.

Alternately you could have an electrical clutch mechanism setup rigged with a non-rv'd motor to take care of heavy loading and is switched on ONLY during heavy load requirements....this can be automated with an RPM sensor which would automatically switch on the motor to take care of the additional load and would switch off once the load is attained. Then the rv'd motor takes over the torque requirement. This should work up until the rv'd motor torque efficiencies can be improved.

Let me know how this sounds."

All of these hocus pocus proposals for different test procedures are bad and would serve only to promote and prolong false beliefs.  Anything short of running continuous steady resistive loads and using accurate measurement techniques will lead only to further clouding of the issues and more patently false claims.  The idea of using "pulsed loads" or "reactive loads" is just another way to allow and promote totally false energy measurements. 

Measuring peak output power levels for short durations on a machine that is being fed continuously and then comparing those numbers to calculate electrical efficiency is just pure crap.  Same with loading the device with capacitors, which absorb no energy to speak of...it's all just a bunch of ways to fake good-looking results. 

If the machine cannot comfortably produce even a steady ten seconds of 1000W real power output while sucking up a continuous 1440W input, it cannot be reasonably considered as "promising" or any kind of "energy achievement", sad to say. 

As much as we might like and respect Charles and his great selfless attitude and colorful showmanship, the truthful unvarnished results of this testing and demonstration session are simply that it failed quite clearly to indicate any excess energy or any promise of such whatsoever. 

No one seems the least bit interested in learning why there is such a huge difference between what has been promised and reported for so many years and the bare, sad truth that these brief tests reveal.  Look at all the dozens of claims published all over the web, including on this site and on panacea, Ashtweth's site. Free energy!  The world's children need this now!  Please donate!   Come on, man!   Now that you have seen for yourself that it isn't true, you should remove the false claims!

It seems that the worse the sad truth is, the thicker the BS and the more convoluted the excuses and jargonistic theories.  It's really rather pathetic.  What is so hard about being objective, looking at the facts as they are and calling a spade a spade? 

The Charles Campbell energy machine does not perform as claimed or as hoped.  It does not produce any excess energy.  It exhibits normal power and energy losses as entirely predictable by standard textbook analysis.  It shows no anomalous or remarkable thermodynamic behaviors.  All claims to the contrary were shown to be invalid by a few minutes of simple testing.   There!  Was that so hard?  Let's move on!

Humbugger