Chas Campbell free power motor

[Joh70]

On german Wikipedia the description is a little different:

"Die Brachistochrone ist die schnellste Verbindung zweier Punkte durch eine Bahn,
auf der ein Massenpunkt unter dem Einfluss der Gravitationskraft reibungsfrei hinabgleitet."
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone)

Means, there is one optimal acceleration of mass thru gravity leading to the lowest possible friction. The result is a higher speed.

IT IS ONLY AN OPTIMIZATION, like having better bearings or so. Only friction is lowered.

I saw a physical demonstration on a quiz-show on TV (http://www.daserste.de/programm/tvtipp.asp?datum=18.08.2007). The answer was proofed with following result: Masses in a free fall reach the floor at the same time, although on mass is dropped verticaly and the other mass is pushed horizontaly first!

So its only about friction on rails. No additional energy is gained, which isn't there on the other strait rail and being converted to heat.

[zero]

I think i need to try one last time... 
Cant get any clearer than this..

Assuming both teeters have the same leverage and travel,  which
one will output more energy?


also note, that Stephans vid shows an example too.   When both
balls hit the back wall of the rails - the entire assembly moves forwards.

[srawofni]

Hello All,

Today a ran a computer simulation of the Chas Campbell gravity wheel.
SolidWorks 2007 can simulate gravity on mechanical assemblies and I have used
this package to build and test over 50 similar devices. I have found it to be very reliable
and accurate for this type of testing. The end result was the wheel is neutral with
6 weights left on the inner ? and 2 weights right on the outer ?. It does not turn.
(Inner diameter 1000mm - Outer diameter 2000mm)
Remove weight from either side and it moved as expected.
I'll have to brush up on my maths as I thought this one had a slight chance of working.
Cheers 
srawofni

[Humbugger]

@srawofni

That's way cool.  Stefan may want you to change it to 4:1 since he started the whole fracas about 2:1 being too small.  I'm jealous...I've got an old SW2001 with no gravity or animation...you guys have all the fun!

@wattsup

A 100% on the puzzle.  "Curved Hypoteni"  (is that the plural of hypotenuses?)

Don't want me to comment on Back EMF huh?  Embarrassed?  Gonna anyway...

The term has been abused to describe both the "Reverse Voltage Flyback" of energy from a suddenly opened inductance (mag field collapse) and the opposing "Counter EMF" of the building field against the current creating it. 

I had confusion for years about the terminology.  What matters is that you know that both phenomena happen and what to expect.  I prefer to avoid BEMF as a term just because it has been so abused and confused so often.  I like flyback energy and counter emf...they're more descriptive.

Humbugger

[tinu]

@srawofni,

Cool!
But why did it take it so long?!! (It?s a rhetorical question, though. I?ve spend most part of the last might, not because of the math ?that was the easy part- but because it needed long explanations...  And now I?m very sleepy.)

Excellent work!
Welcome aboard and please stay close!
Some problems keep changing here much faster than an army of ppl can solve them.

Here is my advice, or at least from now on I?ll work this way: do a simulation, calculus, whatever you need to do only after the device is clearly defined and only after getting a firm promise that it is final; no 'minor adjustments or variations' accepted. My 2 cents.

Now you can start preparing the simulation for an external radius of 4. 
And don?t forget the above advice! 

Tinu