Chas Campbell free power motor

[rMuD]

We need the upper red ball to go faster out to 4x distance,
cause normally it can only go out to 3.8 in the time the right slot
for taking it down arrives !
With this trick we can get the red ball more far out faster...

Sure in
sliderails3.jpg
the red 2 slider rails must be curved for lower friction.
but if you succeed to get the yellow balls more into the center during lift
then the torquearm is lower and that gives the wheel more energy.

@Stefan 

"normally it can only go out to 3.8 in the time the right slot
for taking it down arrives"

Somehow I missed where that particular idea came from.  Certainly not from me.  All of my models assumed zero travel time on the delivery ramps.  The 3.8673 number had nothing to do with time or ball travel on the rails, only trigonometry and geometry.

Anyway...we seem to have forgotten that all of the previous discussion (at least in my mind) allowed for the assumed instantaneous travel of the balls on the ramps and no friction and no slopes needed on the ramps...the perfect ideal setup and...

It still would not work because the wheel force torques are balanced.  Don't tell me we wasted all that time, please.

The speed of the balls on the ramps would be idealized by following a parabola-like trajectory as in the Brachistochrone curve that ShruggedAtlas brings to our attention (a very old demonstration of very conventional physics principals).  But, as Shrugged says and as our entire prior discussion had already assumed, the wheel still does not turn even with light-speed ball travel in a friction-free idealization.

So, bring on the SMOTs, the Magnetic ICs, the Pulse Lead-out Anti-Graviton cylinders and the Magnesium Grignard Reactors.  We'll get it to work, have no fear.  I am confident.  I liked Gaby's ideas the best.

Humbugger

I gave up trying to beat 3.87 into them.. even if there is a "ZPE" magic force that can move the device forward the 1.1 degrees with no mass to push it past that point, it still doesn't work..   It's kinda like why the gravity wheel works, cause of a catastropic failure that removes mass (a ball) from the upward swing.  even if 4:1 had a flywheel to push it thru the 1.1 degrees with no mass on the force side...  it still comes out 0 net gain.   

[rMuD]

what I do have to say about it is, the ramp without the dip will travel a longer distance, because of the shorter track, the ball on the track with the dip may get to the top of it's dip faster, but it has less energy than the ball on the straight track (slower).

Meaning: the gravity wheel needs to move a ball up higher than it started coming off the inner wheel.  it would take less energy to just go uphill vs travel the extra distance from the dip.

Common Sense: if there was extra energy in going down a dip and back up than going level..  a Overunity device would be as simple as a circular track with several dips, and it would accelerate to infinity

You did not yet understand that.
The 2 balls come to the end with the same potential and
kinetic energy, so they have the same speed, but as
the ball taking the dip transverses the distance faster,
it is just first there.
It has to do with the ball taking the dip being faster during the
dip, cause there it has more kinetic energy and thus speed,
so it transverses faster the track.
But when it comes up again, it has the same speed
and the same potential energy as the ball going in the straight track.

there is no claim or meantion of speed at the end of the ramp being the same, the ball with the dip is going slower after it comes up that hill than the ball going level, if you extended the track, the ball with the dip will stop shorter than the ball that went on the straight track.  The difference  will be the same distance the track was extended to make the dip.

If you are right and I am wrong, a dip in a track is over unity by the difference between a straight track and the dipped track

F=ma 

my mind is too simple.. my error

[rMuD]

what I do have to say about it is, the ramp without the dip will travel a longer distance, because of the shorter track, the ball on the track with the dip may get to the top of it's dip faster, but it has less energy than the ball on the straight track (slower).

Meaning: the gravity wheel needs to move a ball up higher than it started coming off the inner wheel.  it would take less energy to just go uphill vs travel the extra distance from the dip.

Common Sense: if there was extra energy in going down a dip and back up than going level..  a Overunity device would be as simple as a circular track with several dips, and it would accelerate to infinity

You did not yet understand that.
The 2 balls come to the end with the same potential and
kinetic energy, so they have the same speed, but as
the ball taking the dip transverses the distance faster,
it is just first there.
It has to do with the ball taking the dip being faster during the
dip, cause there it has more kinetic energy and thus speed,
so it transverses faster the track.
But when it comes up again, it has the same speed
and the same potential energy as the ball going in the straight track.

there is no claim or meantion of speed at the end of the ramp being the same, the ball with the dip is going slower after it comes up that hill than the ball going level, if you extended the track, the ball with the dip will stop shorter than the ball that went on the straight track.  The difference  will be the same distance the track was extended to make the dip.

If you are right and I am wrong, a dip in a track is over unity by the difference between a straight track and the dipped track

F=ma 

one minor thing I didn't make clear, the balls are traveling at the same "speed" when the ball reaches the top of the ramp...  but is decelerating faster when it hits the stop the dipped ball is traveling slower

I now can picture this as a acceleration curve, sorry for being me

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

As Requested by Stefan

"did you ask Chas, what this red plastic offcenter thing was in the CD video
in his big wheel there ?

Answer

"it is nothing special, he only had his big wheel going there for show and  to distract from his motor flywheel set up."


I agree is prob best to begin a new Chas thread with technical data and updates

[Humbugger]

"You did not yet understand that.
The 2 balls come to the end with the same potential and
kinetic energy, so they have the same speed, but as
the ball taking the dip transverses the distance faster,
it is just first there.
It has to do with the ball taking the dip being faster during the
dip, cause there it has more kinetic energy and thus speed,
so it transverses faster the track.
But when it comes up again, it has the same speed
and the same potential energy as the ball going in the straight track."

I believe Stefan's description here is right on the money.  No excess energy is generated but the ball travelling the longer distance will arrive first and has a higher average speed; same terminal speed.  A true Brachy-path would get there even faster than the dipped track shown and no other shape could beat it. 

It's a very cool example anti-intuitive; it seems to defy what we normally would guess might happen.  Technically, it is only relevant in solving a speed problem; no free energy.  Really interesting though.  I only saw this for the first time a couple of months ago presented as an introductory physics lesson problem (tells you where my physics study level is at).  I had not seen the video before. 

Nice post. 

Humbugger