Chas Campbell free power motor

[rMuD]

Son of a gun Chas, how many decades did you work on this wheel?


I have provided an alternative design based on Chas' Wheel. This is fully inspired by Chas' idea of transfering balls but I have used two small wheels, the left turning faster than the right, the right holding two balls per angle set, the left only one ball per angle set. Also the top and bottom ball groups act like an automatic energy transfer mechanism. One ball hits a group of balls and the end ball is projected outwards immediately saving the travel time. It's like teleportation of mass. Billiards anyone? Actually Chas could use this onhis wheel.

The left wheel lifts the balls from the inside, thus shortening the total lenght of travel of the balls going up.

This type of project could be done in smaller scale.
Calculate the diameters of the left wheel 10", right wheel 20" to start.

2:1 gear ratio so you have to multiply your weight going up by 2?
also you have to have the ball slots at the same angle offset or you will run out of balls at the top, well for your design, the left side would have to be 1/2 the angle of the big wheel, as you are passing 2 balls down on the right

funny thing about all of this, is that the video showed the gravity where, when we were interested in the other device..  the Gravity wheel was something I think he said he enjoyed building.... and very well engineered.. 

In school your tought that failure is bad, and to avoid it at all costs, in the real world the more mistakes you make the more you learn, and the more successful you become.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

Patrick Kelly from Panacea has just send me the following diagram, which is his take on the Chas Campbell system.



Forwarded without comment at this stage

Hans von Lieven

[helmut]

@Chas Campbell
I want you to know,that you are a great Carakter.
Because of you many people all over the world start thinking about the horizont.
Some of the coming inventions are caused by you.Because you show the way to do the Impossible thing.

Thanks

helmut

[lancaIV]

Chas Campell delivers us 2 lever-steps more than:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE19936258&F=0
The second describes a closed cycle,probably..... !?

S
  dL

[dc2rf]

 Alas, no one would like to see a true free energy machine more than I, but I have reservations about most of this genre of devices. BTW, I'm working on FE devices myself (magnetic and ZPE), and have been doing so for many years. I am NOT a so called "debunker", but rather a FE experimenter myself. Having made that clear, let me tell you why I disagree in this case. Feel free to disagree with me, but please do so using easy to understand examples rather than gut feeling if you wish to dispute my post..
  Lets look at the concepts used here and compare them to easily understandable (similar) concepts.
First of all, I put it to you that it takes the same amount of overall energy to lift a mass (as in balls) "x" number of inches, whether the lift is slow (as in wide circumference), or faster (as in more narrow circumference). I see it as the same old trade off that you get in many areas of mechanical and electrical conversion. A lever does not amplify (overall) power, it simply gains advantage by converting a shorter/faster movement requiring high power/time ratio, to a longer/slower movement of lower power/time ratio (that the human body can more easily provide). That's exactly what I see happening here with the balls, but something else is also being overlooked, IMHO.
What is overlooked?
1. the machine is being "primed" when the user lifts the first rack of balls against gravity and places them on the top rack. That lift = energy or power that is loaded into the system. That's probably why the unit fails after a short time, IMHO. The energy that was added when the balls were lifted (against gravity) has been used up. Friction and other factors also affect this, but are surely secondary to the above fact.
2. when the balls return (by whatever mechanism) they (IMHO) use the same overall amount of power/energy to do so (plus friction losses).
Whether it's by the outer loop which is slower but longer, or by the inner loop which is faster but shorter. I put it to you that the actual power/energy  required is basically the same. As I see it, this is simply a form of a lever, as mentioned above.  Going down the balls have gravity aiding them - but going UP  gravity works against them, despite the leverage factor (see above).
The same sort of principle takes place in an electrical transformer. Example: a step-up  transformer can boost voltage, but only at the cost of losing current (as in Amps) capability. Overall POWER is what matters, since power=volts x  amps (in simple terms). To recap: in a simplified example, as you boost voltage in a transformer you lower current capability (and visa-versa), but (apart from losses), the overall power capability in Watts, remains the same. I see this genre of mechanical devices as being the mechanical analog of the above electrical example.
Other than possibly precession of the earth (in one direction), I see no other energy source to tap into with such a machine. And, I don't think precession could cause this type of machine to work. Having said all that, I admire the inventors "pluck" and spirit, and don't doubt that he could come up with a workable concept in the future. People with his spirit and determination are what we need, and that's at least half the battle. None of us come up with a solution the first time, myself included. Kudos to the inventor for that reason!