Chas Campbell free power motor

[Pirate88179]

This is all Greek to me...or, well...latin.

Bill

[Eddy Currentz]

It's not such a bad thing to have the doubters here. They serve to remind us of the status quo. They can remind us of the close minded scientific community that smugly believe that all that can be discovered, has been. Frankly I'm grateful for this attitude, it leaves me so many new and interesting things to explore. I love physics and mechanical devices, and to be able to combine the two and create interesting machines is endless fun.
The exact physics behind why something like Campbell's machine would produce more energy out than in is obviously not well understood. Nothing on this forum is well understood.
Standard Newtonian physics does not adequately explain mass in rotation. Gyroscopic devices are known to loose weight when the gyros are activated. Why? Who knows, but I'm not going to listen to some scientist tell me that it can't be happening because it doesn't fit one of his "laws".
When I saw a UFO, it wasn't Venus, swamp gas or my imagination. "Science" can't explain it so it must not exist.
Rex research has hundreds and hundreds of inventors who have created things that are "impossible" according to present scientific knowlege. Either all those inventors were smoking crack, or the "scientists" and "experts" have their head up their asses. I am heavily inclined to believe the latter.
I have yet to build a machine that I haven't learned a whole lot from. I use my brain and my imagination to try new things based on my scientific knowledge and what I see other guys doing. Sometimes it works but most of the time it doesn't. I figure if I get one in ten tries right, I'm doing well.
But it's all fun, that's what keeps me trying. It's a fascinating journey full of twists and turns, successes and failures. The naysayers only spur me on.

Ted

[Pirate88179]

Ted:

Igree 100%.  If we knew everything, there would be nothing new to discover...and we ain't there yet.

Bill

[linda933]

No one has suggested that they (or anyone else) "knows everything".  Certainly, everyone will agree that learning continues and amazing new discoveries will be revealed as time marches on.

The question I have asked is more along the lines "Do we know anything?  Have we learned anything at all useful from scientific inquiry?".   My example of trying forever to lift ones' self into graceful flight by tugging upwards upon ones' own buttocks...there are few here, I would guess, who will make a career or even hobby of various attempts at this feat.  Yet there are certainly untried angles, gripping techniques, tugging rhythms, special gloves, accompanying chants and mantras...ad nauseum. 

How does any of us know for certain that it cannot be done?  Why are not more of us attempting and discussing various nuances and approaches to this "possibility of" directly-self-powered anti-gravitational flight using only our bare hands?  Children often attempt it!  Fortunately, they fail each time or there would be a rash of 911 calls from terrified mothers whose children had floated away.

My question, which no one has attempted to answer, was simple and clear:  What exactly is it that anyone perceives as the hopeful principal of operation for a Charles Campbell or Jesse McQueen type of device?  All of the well-tested physics and science of mechanics and dynamics indicates that such a machine cannot ever hope to produce excess energy.  None has ever demonstrated it. 

So why do some here continue to believe there is a sound foundation of possibilities here?  I'm dying of curiosity to know what the difference is between the idea of self-lifting by simply butt-tugging upward (which I think nearly everyone can agree is futile) and the idea of producing self-sustaining excess energy using standard motors, dynamos, gears, pullies and flywheels?  Why in the world would anyone choose to pursue such a foolish notion?  Are we the same in this way as the innocent child who tries to lift herself skyward?  Do we believe in the impossible because we simply like to defy the wisdom of science?  Or is it because we, like little children, have not learned to think critically and use the knowledge learned over centuries and which has stood all tests so far?

I'm simply asking what ideas, facts, principals or theories anyone might have for believing in the possibility of a working overunity self-running Charles/McQueen type system.  So far, no one has offered any attempt at an answer!

Linda

[Eddy Currentz]

Hi Linda,
If we all just took standard physics at face value, as you apparently do, we wouldn't be here. However, once one studies the works of people like Bruce Depalma, Jim Murray, Milkovic, Tesla and many others, a different understanding emerges. These guys have explored aspects of physics way beyond what is established in the textbooks as definitive science. They have discovered that the laws of nature do not always follow the laws of science.
Building and studying Milkovic's double oscillator has given me profound insights into the mechanism of a rotating mass. I have found that centrifugal force is a real and important element in this type of system. Standard physics says the centrifugal force is a phantom force, and it's really centripetal force in disguise. I have found this to be utter bullshit. Standard physics claims that a rotating mass can be completely defined according to classic Newtonian law. More bullshit.
When I find a lot of BS on one side of the argument, and a lot of interesting results on the other side of the argument, I tend towards the side that smells better. You can call this futile flight all you want to, but you will never really know until you personally explore the phenomenon.
It's easy to sit back and criticize and ridicule those who are trying something new. However, nothing new has ever been discovered by people who do this. It's the guys in the garage who don't give up, and keep plugging away at it who find success.
Hanging around forums like this one will provide the cynic with endless fodder for ridicule. This then begs the question: what's the point? Do you find it gratifying or amusing to belittle and criticize those who are trying to understand a new concept? Or are you trying to sow doubt and cause disruption for some other reason? Why are you here Linda?


Ted