Chas Campbell free power motor

[tropes]

Okay Stefan, you made your point; YOU ARE THE BOSS. Now you can take the gag off Humbugger. I'm sure he will be better behaved!!!
Peter

[RoadRunner]

You didn't bother doing the experiment before you replied did you, Zero
Instead, you attacked my reasoning, maintaining willful ignorance.

People like you will NEVER find the keys to clean energy because you don't try the experiments, you'd rather argue your position despite others who know better telling you that you are wrong.
This is why people like Chas Campbell and Bedini, although they have FAILED to demonstrate unlimited, clean, free energy, have more chance of finding the keys than do you.
Yes, I know that there are Bedini disciples who will jump up and down claiming that he's got motors running which make free energy... How many other people have managed to replicate the work of Bedini and produce unlimited energy ? Very efficient motors, yes. Free energy on tap, no. What happens when people ask Bedini how to do it ?? He says that all the answers are there, build it as he says and it works. I'm sure that many people who've tried the replication, will agree that it doesn't simply work. There's a lot more to it than just making the circuit and the coils as he suggests. My own SSG is running on a bike-wheel, drawing about 125ma from a 12v or 9v supply and charging a 400v/220uF cap up to 310v quite quickly. I've had NO success in 'energising' a battery though... Yet !
Do I do as you do and start claiming, 'this doesn't work' without doing the experiments ?
No. My own SSG spins as I write and the only thing holding up development and further testing at the moment is the fact that my scope is away for repair/recalibration.

If you cannot find a ramp and a weight for your scales, take your scales into an elevator and watch your own weight as you ride up and down. What you lose on the way down, you gain at the bottom. There is NO GAIN at the bottom WITHOUT the loss on the way down and this is what everyone keeps trying to tell you. That you don't GAIN from having the balls hit the ends of their tubes. You only hold off some of that energy for a short period of time then deliver it in a quick peak. There is NO NET GAIN... Of course, I expect that you will simply continue to make up straw-men and knock them down claiming that you've destroyed my arguments and you were right all along, without doing any experimentation.

Secondly, your suggestion that I am Humbugger demonstrates your level of thinking.
Irrational claims without evidence.

You said you'd be willing to bet that I am Humbugger using a new account.
I'll take that bet. Stefan knows I'm not Humbugger (he can check my IP which will show that I am using my ISP and not a proxy) and I can very quickly and easily give you two or three words to type into Google which will tell you who I am and if you're still not convinced, you can then have my private phone number so that you can call me up to verify that I am who I say I am...

So... Put your money where your mouth is, boy.
You're not prepared to put a weight on a ramp on a set of scales so let's see you continue to claim that I am Humbugger.... I'll take your bet. What are you prepared to lose ?
Your willful ignorance, perhaps ?
You've publicly declared, in writing, that you are willing to bet that I am Humbugger.
I have officially, publicly, in writing accepted your bet.
So what's your stake ? Or shall I set the stakes ?

Stefan may have had trouble in grasping the point that Humbugger and one or two others were trying to make, but he has my respect because his approach is entirely different to the one you take.
You state, "I am right, you are wrong."
Stefan says, "I don't understand why I am wrong. Show me."

Do you see the difference ? Do you see why Stefan has the right attitude to learn and understand whereas you are just willfully ignorant ?
One is the attitude of a mature adult mind.
The other is the attitude of a headstrong kid.
No prizes for guessing in which category you fall.

The RoadRunner..

[rMuD]

""Your mistake is forgetting that there are twice as many balls on the left as the right.""

This cannot occur. If there are more balls rising than falling, the system will not perpetuate. they have to rise and fall at the same rate or you will run out of balls on one end or the other. (usually up top)

if you meant twice as many balls worth of force - then yes this is true, however there is a limitation with the wheels mass, and the balls not being able to overcome the forces stopping the wheel. The wheel does not want to spin on its own, and there is a limitation to how small a force can be and actually cause the wheel to move.
this is where the mass of the balls come into play. also the rate at which the wheel moves is effected by the balls mass (and proportional to the mass of the wheel).

it's all based on the angles of the buckets..  if you look at my drawings early on, you will see that at 2:1 scale ration there is average around 2 and for a instant 3 balls on the downside giving force on 60 degrees of spin, that is pusing 5-6 balls up 180 degrees

as the wheel gets bigger, because the lift distance is static, the angle decreases as you scale it up, and at 3.87x bigger that a maximum of 1 ball to push will be on the wheel 100% of the time...

next imbalance to make it a closed system:  you have to maintain the 30 degrees in this case for the it all to equal out, chas wheel is doing less than 60 degrees becase there is a slope to roll the ball from inner to outer and vise versa.  this is irrevelent because it does not exceed a net of 30 degrees of movement, if you did something line 2 balls on the outer where every 3rd ball for example you would have a imbalance that would screw it up

changing the bucket spacing:  the # of buckets has to be divisable by 360 for a "Balanced" wheel..  if that's the goal

dropping balls:  dropping balls has no net gain, but a loss... you lose energy on the impact by the bucket absorbing some of the energy in the collision due to it's inability to accelerate instantly.  I think I read F = cos(Theta) * G down on the bucket and the force sideways is sin of that
(Gravitation energy is split between vertical and horizontal) (that formula is a guess) I didn't confirm or look it up


In all of this, Humbug me and few others were talking of what's been known for 500 years... and trying to explain, and I though doing well at first it got off topic.. but I gaurentee with a basic setup here..  the law of the conservation of energy is not going to be proven wrong with any of these basic gravity wheels.

I really hope a few more, and I personally feel I learned alot from this discussion....

I'm staying out of this until the results come in

[RoadRunner]

In all of this, Humbug me and few others were talking of what's been known for 500 years... and trying to explain, and I though doing well at first it got off topic.. but I gaurentee with a basic setup here..  the law of the conservation of energy is not going to be proven wrong with any of these basic gravity wheels.

I really hope a few more, and I personally feel I learned alot from this discussion....

rMud, the efforts that you, Hum and a couple of others have put into this discussion have, indeed, helped me to understand why the basic gravity wheel fails to deliver constant rotation under its own power.

I thank you all for that.

I couldn't figure it in my own head because doing the 'thought experiment' leads to a conclusion which is incorrect, This is where Zero is failing. He's only thinking about it instead of going and testing his theories... His other mistake is his constant use of straw-men, ignoring the fact that throwing bowling balls, dropping kegs of beer etc is completely different from allowing them to roll down a slope. If I toss you a bowling ball, you don't feel it's energy until you catch it. If you are holding a ramp, down which I roll that ball, you feel part of its downward force as soon as it is on the ramp... But ONLY PART, then when it comes to rest at the bottom of the ramp, the part that was 'missing' is now delivered as impact. He's seeing only part of the entire system and isolating it from the rest. He cannot even see how the vomit-comet is an extreme example of the systems to which we refer. Because his own mind is not capable of handling the entire system, he breaks it up into little pieces and concentrates on the one bit which he feels will offer vindication. The other alternative, is that he is a deliberate liar, I'm offering him the benefit of the doubt at the moment and accepting the possibility that he's just not managed to grasp the issue... and until he stops trying to validate his arguments with straw-men and actually gets of his butt to do some experiments as suggested, he's never going to see the light. But a deliberate liar, or willfully ignorant, the results are much the same. Zero, get yourself a copy of something like WM2D and try setting up your experiments in that if you don't have a set of bathroom scales... Roll balls down ramps and see how the ramp translates downward forces into sideways forces. Sideways force doesn't move the wheel, only downward forces will do that. Robbing the wheel of the weight of each ball and then imparting that energy with impact has NO NET GAIN and experimentation will PROVE this to you.
Stop trying to argue your case with analogies which don't model the entire system, just do the flippin' experiment which models the entire system (a ball travelling down a ramp and hitting a stop at the end) and you will see for yourself that we DO know what we are talking about.
Then you owe Hum, rMuD and the others an apology. Be a mature adult and actually try it, learn, understand and then admit your previous misunderstanding... Anything else is immature folly and deliberate ignorance.

The RoadRunner..

[gaby de wilde]

In my head Chas second device ended up a 1000 KG concrete flywheel cast in a ditch with it's axle fixed onto a generator. Then use the slippery belt stuffs to make it go. You can drive your car on top and give it a good whirl. You think your little coffee maker is going to stop that mass?

I'm not going to do the math. *grin*

I already know concrete is cheaper as batteries. I'm not fooled 

oh they are much heavier than that.. we wanted to put a  600KVA unit in the basement of the building, the elevators couldn't handle the discs individually that made up the 3 meter tall stack of them, we were going to have to dig a hole and cut a hole in the side of the building to put them in.. decided to scrap the project.

Concrete my god that would be a nightmare to balance..  1000KG

Good problem thinking,

Just make it float with it's axle at the height of the bearings.

Bit of wax etc

You can also make 2 of 500 kg on the same axle.

4 of 250 kg etc :-)

Doesn't sound undoable?

Can we fix the generator straight on the axle?

these are already manufactured by 10-20 different companies, and are wide spread used around the world..  generations of experience out there making these

What do you mean? "already", there are millions of ways to build a flywheel.  Already can mean 10-20 things in this post???

Do you have a link to a floating flywheel manufacturer for me?

I cant seem to find any.