First time i see a motor like that, seam to work with a lot of flying wheel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QD2Whs_LxA
And here is a new video:
http://rapidshare.com/files/40708480/C_F_P.mpg.html
nice but where is the science behind this free energy machine? how do i build one?!
peace
i wish i know, i just posted the video link ! don't blame the messenger :)
Amazing machine !
From where is he in Australia ?
Can somebody visit him and find out more ?
It seems he is somehow using his wheels
as gears and gets a power amplification !
Or does he still use other principles likes magnets
with it ?
Regards, Stefan.
Can anybody please find out his telephone number,
I want to call Chas Campbell.
How can one search in whitepages Australia also for
firstnames ?
I only saw in
http://www.whitepages.com.au/wp/initResSearch.do
that one can only search by the last name
but not give in the first name.
So he probably lives in Brisbane Queensland area ?
Not sure if its right...
Campbell C N,
8 Petrie Tce Brisbane 4000,
(07) 3876 6259
Thanks, but
this number I already tried to call,
but it was only an answering machine from a multimedia company or something
simular..
Is there no directory where one can also search additionally with the first name "Chas" ?
I have some pals in Australia and they have not heard a word of this person. Anyway the motor seems a mix of pulse, gravity and inertia.
I'll see if they (my pals) can find how to reach him.
Regards.
in the video we see an address:
Chas Campbell
PO Box 137
SUNNY BANK, QLD 4109
even if its a postal box, he live prob near by
By looking at his video again i am not sure if its really free energy, he use 800w to drive flywheels, its easy to turn a 3.5kwatt gen without load, he can use it and start some electrics stuffs until the flywheels begin to slowdown due to the load, i am pretty sure his motor is not free energy
Hi All,
A FE friend of mine is in Brisbane and he is already following up this info.
Will let you know what he finds out.
Regards, Earl
Hi Earl,
I have called now these 2 addresses:
Campbell C & G
* 26 Samara St Sunnybank 4109
* (07) 3344 2027
*
and
*
Campbell C A
* 143 Dunedin St Sunnybank 4109
* (07) 3344 6274
But these are also different people....
These are the only ones listed in the whitepages with a "C" as the
firstname in Sunnybank...
Please let me know more, if you can find him.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on June 07, 2007, 10:03:27 PM
Is there no directory where one can also search additionally with the first name "Chas" ?
In England, Chas is short for Charles. Try the latter.
(N.B. Remember Chas Chandler of "The Animals").
Paul.
The problem is,
that you can only search in the Australian online Whitepages
for the last name, not in conjunction with the first name...
So it also does not display the full firstnames in the search results...
Pretty badly programmed, or maybe it is because of data privacy security ?
Hi stefan , earl and all.
I live 20 mins away from sunny bank.
From advice from Earl, I have written to the sunnybank address and now am about to phone channel 10 the TV show and request more information.
We can also increase his drive motor efficiency with the Roto verter technology, i will get full details for all on construction and plans, also i plan to use his letters of rejection to create some social reform from my non profit organization logistics.
shouldent be much longer.
About 8 hours ago i saw a report on Keelynet page with more detailed
information.perhaps it helps.
Chas Campbell came from australia.
Helmut
Do you have a link for this or can you post i am unable to locate the information your reference?
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on June 09, 2007, 04:27:18 AM
Do you have a link for this or can you post i am unable to locate the information your reference?
Please click on the site and scroll so far down,that the post comare to date 08.06.07
http://www.keelynet.com/
And then click the Headline open the Report.
regards to all
Helmut
Hi ashtweth_nihilisti,
maybe you can make a trip this weekend to Sunny Bank and ask around for him..
Is it a big town or only a small village ?
Probably a few people over there will know him and please invite him to come to this forum, or if he does not use the Internet, please tell him about us and let him know, that we will support him, if he will disclose freely his informations.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan and everyone!:
I have already sent a package to Mr. Campbell 2 days ago to his PO BOX, unfortunetly UPS, DHL and all those companies does not send packages to PO BOXES, so, I had to sent it trough Mexican Nation Postal Service (slower and more expensive) so,they told me it could arrive in 10 days (more or less) so if I have news from Mr. Campbell I will contact you again here.
On the YOU TUBE video Mr. Campbell seems to be a kind and a greed free person.
Best Regards
Jorge Rojo
Hi Jorge,
many thanks.
Yes, I agree.
Mr. Campbell seems to be a very kind and a greed free person.
So I hope he will share his invention with us and the world for
living in a better place.
Best regards, Stefan.
Thanks for your message Stefan,
STEFAN and ASHTWETH_NIHILISTI:
I have been analizing the video again and again, and I start to look to the writings on the wall, and it appears to be written:
CD SENT TO
ALAN JONES
PETER BEATTIE
? TURNBULL
DICK SMITH
C? NEWMAN
CRAIG EMERSON
JERRY HARVEY
PURE FRIENDS
I hope it is what I imagine and that CHAS is OK.
On the other hand ashtweth_nihilisti on the Thanks disc appears some companies and people who should know Mr Campbell, I could read as follows:
RYAN Sheetmetal
Dr.Ian G Johnson
Pulleys
Gus Engineering
MAXGLO
I hope this could help, good luck ashtweth_nihilisti!
Maybe someone of the names on the friends list could be found on the white pages as you did STEFAN.
Best Regards
Jorge
If anybody knows these guy names there on these plates,
please contact them and tell them to come over here and
report their findings.
Many thanks.
ALAN JONES- RADIO ANNOUNCER AUSTRALIA WIDE (SYDNEY BASED)
PETER BEATTIE- PREMIER OF STATE OF QUEENSLAND AUSTRALIA
MALCOLM TURNBULL- POLITICIAN: FEDERAL MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
DICK SMITH- PREV OWNER OF DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS CHAIN: INVENTOR ADVENTURER
CAMPBELL NEWMAN- BRISBANE CITY LORD MAYOR
CRAIG EMERSON- AUSTRALIAN POLITICIAN
JERRY HARVEY- OWNER OF HARVEY NORMAN RETAIL CHAIN AUSTRALASIA
Peswiki link incl. address:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Chas_Campbell_Generator (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Chas_Campbell_Generator)
Hello to all i just spoke via email to stefan, i have had phone contact with him, but my mobile phone died, as stefan says we need energy :P
Okay he does not seem to want to show to government any more, i will have further phone contact with him in a few days and will arrange a meeting to and to acquire as much information as possible.
Its important he knows of the dangers involved and the solutions available, OPEN SOURCED!
panaceas response to chas and latest development
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/HowtheywentWrong.htm
Stefan , jorge and all,
He metioned American person sending him some nice things and thanks him :)
Spoken to him and have his email, he thanks every one for writing to
him and will answer every ones mails.
Will have more news for every one as i get it. Trying to get him to
use the RV for a drive motor from a DC no bullshit input, i have a
battery and inverter for him.
Ash
Hi Ash,
please keep us informed about the progress to contact him.
Many thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on June 22, 2007, 05:53:22 PM
Hi Ash,
please keep us informed about the progress to contact him.
Many thanks.
Stefan,
I did receive a reply from Chas but it would appear that he is not about to release
any more information at this time.
One reason might be...when you do a google search this comes up...
http://www.cycclone.com/
Chas Campbell Generator
Regards,
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on June 25, 2007, 12:25:03 AM
Quote from: hartiberlin on June 22, 2007, 05:53:22 PM
Hi Ash,
please keep us informed about the progress to contact him.
Many thanks.
Stefan,
http://www.cycclone.com/
Chas Campbell Generator
A correction on my last post...
Ash tells me that is a coincidence, not the same person.
Ron
Please, I will love to have a squetch of the generator, more detailed than the pictures, so I could make my own. I have access to several machines, and I can replicate one.
I think this is a really easy generator to replicate, and I have tools araund to use... Ifr I get some squetches, i will make one, and put specific information on my replication.
Also, please put the e-mail here, or send it by perosnal messagge.
thanks a lot,
Pablo
Hi all,
Ill be meeting Chas in person on monday, he wont be disclose in all his details to me at this smeeeting but wants me to act as an ambassador, he will be giving me a proof of principle CD to show. And will be informing me of the progress.
the Good news is he intends to disclose it via the Internet, so i hope we are given exclusive opportunities to present this to over unity forum.
he thanks people for the interest in his machine., i will continue to update all of his movements and progress ads this will create more security.
He plans to build a better machine, (even tho i feel its not necessary) the rest out there can build his machine he should IMO just dislcose the principle, and also not delay!.,
any ways, i will have more news for you all after the meeting.
Guys,
First up let me tell you some thing, perpetual motion via gravity is
possible.Chas told me all about it, and gave me a CD. He will disclose
his device, but not now, ill explain in a second. Bessler wasn't as a
smart as Chas or All of us working with open sourced technology.
I feel like i could see history unfold in front of my eyes after
talking to Chas. The good news is he is on board with all of US now
(panacea)He doesn't want government grants (they offered) he wants
philanthropic foundations to help him (panaceas concept)
I hope EVERY ONE can replicate his findings and improve his concept,
the RV can (which is very cool) he is old , and not in good health.
I'm trying to get him a new workshop to work in, IF ANY ONE IS IN
BRISBANE WITH A WORK SHOP TO HELP CHAS LET ME KNOW PLEASE.
I told Chas that its am important humanitarian statement he is making,
as he show that by ALTRUISM , it is the defining element which has
improved our society and made the difference to get technologies of
this nature out there. (giving it away)
And that we will put this in on our(panacea) curriculum page, with a
list of many philanthropist and altruists, who have by their very
gestures improved society, and it will be made an example to TEACH
KIDS part of this for their life skills.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/Curriculum.htm
Earls ideas are there too
He was very impressed , i told him he was one of a kind, he is making
a new fly wheel and that he will give us all details, so we all have
to sit tight.
I tried explaining the critical nature of stalling as per Patrick's
advice, tryed every thing (even begging lol)He wants to have his
moment where he shows TV (the they will be back , maybe even filming
it with an RV drive motor!) where he proves (he wants to create social
reform like panacea) that the 7 people he sent CD's too KNEW about
this but Ignored him.
sort of dangerous, but he wants his moment, not much i can do, ill
keep trying.
Also the TV device DE tunes after going OU. he said the center fugal
force (like how when you push a car and it gets moving, and only need
a tiny push to keep it going) some how comes back and reflects on the
motor.His new design will counter this.
I told him you guys can help, etc etc, i told him to use the RV, with
an invert, (DC in) and Norms PMI gen we have for DC out.
He will try it.
here is a picture out of the CD im not supposed to show you guys,
here was his first device.CD has NO technical details, but show a hell
of an OU!
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2783/chasxi0.jpg
Now he wants me to contact Grant foundaitons, so ESA has made us all
up a letter to work on, actually he has mad many, so im getting onto
that main thing is we need to find Chas a work shop near his house at
Sunny bank Brisbane, the quicker we do, the quicker we change history
gentle men.
GUY PLEASE TRY AND HELP US FIND CHAS A WORK SHOP IN BRISBANE , HE
NEEDS A PRIVATE TYPE OF PLACE TO WORK LIKE A GARAGE
PS, ill try and persuade him to let me put the CD up on google video.
what a day, did my best to get the details, now he said it should be 2
weeks to a public unveiling, ill be there for that so will put it
straight on the Internet!
Regards
Ashtweth
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 02, 2007, 10:44:02 PM
(he wants to create social
reform like panacea) that the 7 people he sent CD's too KNEW about
this but Ignored him.
sort of dangerous, but he wants his moment, not much i can do, ill
keep trying.
Great news Ash,
but this is dangerous, what he wants to do with the exposing of these 7 people.
Justtry to convince him,that these people just did not care,
cause they were educated this way or just did not want tolook at it
or were too stupid to get it...
He should not look back to have a fight with these people, but should look forward
to just publish it the sooner the better...as he has now found the right people
which will help him.
Looking forward to hear more of it.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
If his technology works and he gives it to the world that action will last longer than any other that anyone is capable of. People come and go, like drops in a bucket, but this could be a new begining for mankind. I hope his device is indeed the answer we seek and that he realizes that we could be his solution for giving this to the world. Social consciousness is better without a vendetta. Once its independently replicated by an open source community it can't be stopped by anyone. Theres just too many of us.
~Dingus Mungus
sounds to me like he wants to semi-open source the machine. He wants people to see it, kinda, but doesn't really want to give out the answer, if there is one. @ Chas we have all seen this before, act while you can, how many inventors have their stuff "stolen".
Fish or cut bait, $h1T or get off the pot. Get on with it or get over it.
Why is it that free energy for all the world is not payment enough, for those who have the way? They need to be honored; they need recognition; they need to be stroked. How many have died with their valuable secrets?
Little egos kill the biggest advances, every time.
It doesn't seem humanity deserves free energy. We're too fracking fickle and petty.
Chas, if you really have something, get your damn ego out of the way and give it too the world NOW. Hopefully, it is not already too late.
j
I have already seen a new video, where Chas is powering a fan, an incandescent bulb with about 100 Watts
,a drill and a saw all together from his output.
The problem is, that he wishes that this video will not yet be put out, but very soon.
The main big wheel converts gravity energy somehow simular to Bessler probably
as there are weights which are displaced more at one side,
so he always has one side heavier than the other.
Ask him what he wants to see accomplished before full disclosure.
I just hope we here can help him get the ball rolling in some way.
Thanks for the updates!
~Dingus Mungus
How does the release of this information to OU negate his ability to exact revenge and enjoy his moment of fame?
Someone please tell him, unequivocally, that OU will guarantee he gets what he's looking for: we'll provide the knowledge and resources he needs to stay safe, we can guarantee he gets his moment in the sun, and we'll safeguard his invention from anyone with subversive interests.
Sometimes you just got to lay it out on the table, and don't be afraid to make some promises... we can keep them! But you also need to explain that we can't do anything until we have openly verified and replicated his device in OU.
There. I'm done my rant.
Here it is, earlier than Steorn shows their Orbo:
The Chas Campbell free power device:
http://rapidshare.com/files/40708480/C_F_P.mpg.html
Enjoy !
Released by Chas Campbell.
Thanks to Ashtweeth for forwarding and uploading it.
Regards, Stefan.
Go Stefan we want Chas devices not proprietary devics, the spirit of OU forum is alive and well! ;D
Here is the video available for all with comments,
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5520200869600922360
amazing!
He says that he channels back 25% of the output energy and that this keeps the unit perpetually moving, ie. perpetual motion.
So the question is, If the alternator is run only via the gravity motor, like he says, what is that 25% of electrical energy used to do? Why does any electrical energy need to be cycled back?
Unless, he uses some of that energy to bypass a 'locking/sticky point' in his gravity motor.
Did he tell you anything about that Ashtweth?
Guys we need some advice, Chas is old and doesn't want to add new components and mess around with his new wheel.
how can we prove a DC in and C out?
i have an inverter and RV for his 800 watt drive motor. so DC in is fine.
now the idea i had was to ADD a FWBR to his 3.5kv alternator (3500 watts) and use it to charge 7? or 4 etc CAR batteries?
So that was we show that ONE car battery thats running from the inverter powering the induction motor can charge 4+ batteries from his alternator, this is the easiest with out having to modify his set up?
guys please advise, please be specific too ;D
Hi Ash,
just do a full wave rectification with say 1000 uF high voltage cap at the output
and measure a DC load like a low ohm resistor or a toaster or a few inc. light bulbs
as the load in the range of 2000 to 3000 Watts.
So you can measure DC volts and DC amperage in the load.
Maybe add a few chokes and a few more caps for a better lowpass until you really have DC and
no ripple on the voltage.
Try to see, if the input then really only draws around 800 Watts.
Try to see, how the big wheel is working with the displacement of the weights !
Is there a big hose of water being moved out at the right side or
what kind of weights are these exactly ?
What is this red thing there moving out and in again ?
Thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: tao on July 05, 2007, 09:40:58 PM
He says that he channels back 25% of the output energy and that this keeps the unit perpetually moving, ie. perpetual motion.
So the question is, If the alternator is run only via the gravity motor, like he says, what is that 25% of electrical energy used to do? Why does any electrical energy need to be cycled back?
Unless, he uses some of that energy to bypass a 'locking/sticky point' in his gravity motor.
Did he tell you anything about that Ashtweth?
Tao, sorry i missed this man, First stefan thanks Bro..ill put it past him.
now only as he wanted to show that % power out is being used to go back into the input, so showing what he has OU.
Yes he described some 'relay' concept' where one weight does some work and then its braked then another takes off, thats in his new fly wheel, he didn't go into much detail sorry. He is waiting to finish his final design i assume he will tell us then.
Regards
Ashtweth
Hi Ash,
did you see his device live yet or only on the CD he gave you ?
Please try to visit him , take a video camera with you
and tape the inner workings of the big wheel
and gear wheels.
Many thanks.
Ash,
is he in the new video still using 800 Watts
from the grid as the input power ?
I don?t see any input power cables ?
I am attaching a screenshot from the Chas?s video. If you look carefully at the big wheel, there is a big red and probably heavy ring in the middle. During the entire video that ring remains in the same position, ie, further from the center on the right side and closer to the center on the left side. That is what creating a difference in gravitational force/momentum and keeps that big wheel rotating. How he did it I don?t know but this is absolutely obvious from the video.
Kames.
Stefan, ill do my best, i don't want to push him too hard, he will show us when he is ready he made that quiet clear to me ;)
Also that wheel there is for show he told me, (last night).
His new system wont have elements of either systems ???
He says that he channels back 25% of the output energy and that this keeps the unit perpetually moving, ie. perpetual motion.
So the question is, If the alternator is run only via the gravity motor, like he says, what is that 25% of electrical energy used to do? Why does any electrical energy need to be cycled back?
Unless, he uses some of that energy to bypass a 'locking/sticky point' in his gravity motor.
Did he tell you anything about that Ashtweth?
Quote from: tao on July 05, 2007, 11:03:01 PM
He says that he channels back 25% of the output energy and that this keeps the unit perpetually moving, ie. perpetual motion.
So the question is, If the alternator is run only via the gravity motor, like he says, what is that 25% of electrical energy used to do? Why does any electrical energy need to be cycled back?
Unless, he uses some of that energy to bypass a 'locking/sticky point' in his gravity motor.
Did he tell you anything about that Ashtweth?
@tao
To channel some energy back is needed to smooth the operation and increase the performance and also maybe to avoid some sticky points. If there is an excess of energy, why not to feed some of it back even for a simple reason as for a better performance and smoother operation?
Think simple.
Kames.
@ Ash:
Should you maybe try to convince him to compile details of his design and attach it to his Will with instructions for its release to the public domain? ... just--you know--as a precautionary measure for the interim?
You've obviously established some level of rapport with him by this point, so you would know best what to do. This is just a suggestion.
Great work, by the way!
Mark.
Guys, i know the obvious, i represent a non profit org that deals with open source, we have put the details on the site.
We are doing our best to get as much information as possible ;)
Sorry, Ash.
Just got a little excited. It's just... there's something about that paint that makes me think this one might even be simple enough for a guy like me to replicate. :P
Cheers!
--Mark.
sorry missed your Question Stefan,
yes he is still using the 800 watt drive motor.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 05, 2007, 09:51:05 PM
how can we prove a DC in and C out?
guys please advise, please be specific too ;D
No need to add components to the device at all...
I would simply go buy two identical kw meters to detect RMS in from grid, and RMS out to a string of 100w bulbs. Ultra simple install and as long as he can show at least twice as much energy out than in, it'll give him a great place to start the battle from. So for example lets say the kw meter coming from the grid is showing a steady 800watts of load the devices kw meter should show at least 1.5kw out. Now once you unplug from the grid you'll have your total consumed watts reading, and after the device stops you can then know its total output. The most important part of this technique is to record every last nanosecond of consumption from the grid. This means the kw meter must be running before the driving motor is even turned on, so we can account for its inital speed up time.
I hope you find this approach to be the most simplest and honnest solution, as charging batteries are a really inaccurate way to measure actual power. Batteries will only attract skeptical debate. I'm sure Chas would like to know REAL NUMBERS and not a rough guess. It'll make rubbing the numbers in someones face all the sweeter.
~Dingus Mungus
Hi Dingus ,
Thanks ill mention it to Chas
one consideration tho, i think numbers don't impress as much as a LOAD. We need to be careful with light bulbs, as a caloric(sp?) meter is needed to determine HEAT and Freq per applied current, as if the bulbs a lit up, whats to say there are lit and drawing full wattage, perhaps if we measure the wires then i guess.
okay not bad...
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 06, 2007, 12:53:44 AM
Hi Dingus ,
Thanks ill mention it to Chas
one consideration tho, i think numbers don't impress as much as a LOAD. We need to be careful with light bulbs, as a caloric(sp?) meter is needed to determine HEAT and Freq per applied current, as if the bulbs a lit up, whats to say there are lit and drawing full wattage, perhaps if we measure the wires then i guess.
okay not bad...
No need to meter the bulb heat or any of that...
It'll all get recorder in watts at the kw meter.
Heres a link so you'll be more familiar with it:
http://www.supermediastore.com/kilwateldet1.html
I'm sure theres a more exact model out there, but thats essentially it. As you can see it'll measure the exact kWh of consumption! It doesn't get any easier, fortunately for us Chas had predesigned his device to be 100% compatable. The 800w motor is AC right? I thought I had read that you were using an inverter to power it right?
~Dingus Mungus
Latest from Chas
Thanks for all the nice things you have said about me I will try to not let you down and would you please let all those who have contacted me with encouragement especially the man from Mexico who sent me a note -book and cards please tell them as soon as possible I will release all details on the net for the world to see , -chas
Sorry guys but I am losing faith by the second. I have seen all this before. Big hype, but when actually confronted by serious people (with moderate funds) everything is hush hush, but when they are trying to talk to big money everything works great. I was hopeful when I first heard of this, but I have seen the "I will disclose everything soon..." . I will keep an eye on the posts, and hope it doesn't go as the others did.
I'm still waiting for a CoP calculation before I give up on this thread.
I just hope Chas is willing to take the measurements needed...
~Dingus Mungus
Guys i know how frustrating it is, but this guy genuinely wants to give it away, so we need to be patient. I have no reason to doubt , its just he is not like us, he doesent know how critical the whole scene is,
he doesn't even know what over unity is ::) ??? :-\
so, He found the right person (me) as we have show on his page (with the help of Earl, Patrick etc)
Now here is the latest measurement technique i will be working on trying on his set up.
Posted by Earl
that is why you put the following in series:
FWBR -> digital ampmeter -> analog ampmeter -> lightbulb(s)
In parallel to the lamp(s)
one digital voltmeter
one analog voltmeter
At the output of the FWBR a big electrolytic capacitor (with voltage
breakdown reserve)to smooth out ripple and make DC.
At the inverter input do the same thing using both analog and digital
meters simultaneously.You can use an ampmeter at the battery, but measure voltage right at the inverter,otherwise the wires between battery and inverter could (WILL !) drop the
voltage.
Regards, Earl
Standard multimeters won't help me... The problem is this device could be a large ramp up flywheel that stores up energy before he applies a load. I was hoping for a killowatt test so that you could prove the taken energy outweighs the total running energy.
It's a pretty important experiment to get out of the way first...
Should cost less than 100 dollars and you'll have UL aproved meters.
~Dingus Mungus
I would simply go buy two identical kw meters to detect RMS in from grid, and RMS out to a string of 100w bulbs. Ultra simple install and as long as he can show at least twice as much energy out than in, it'll give him a great place to start the battle from. So for example lets say the kw meter coming from the grid is showing a steady 800watts of load the devices kw meter should show at least 1.5kw out. Now once you unplug from the grid you'll have your total consumed watts reading, and after the device stops you can then know its total output. The most important part of this technique is to record every last nanosecond of consumption from the grid. This means the kw meter must be running before the driving motor is even turned on, so we can account for its inital speed up time.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on July 06, 2007, 12:41:39 AM
I would simply go buy two identical kw meters to detect RMS in from grid,
These things are suddenly popping up everywhere on store shelves near me. They're amazing little units, and usually only cost about $20. (US). Great idea, Dingus.
--Mark.
Guys sorry i couldn't ring Stefan to inform the forum, as he is 10 hours ahead or behind me, even tho he stays awake late at night ;D
I have an appointment to measure his set up and will follow all the advice given, he also now is going to stall more :-[ as he wants me to put a letter out to the government stating that if he gets a percentage of thie shares in a certain investment, he will give them the device,
Dont worry im working on him and trying to steer him into the right direction, don't worry about the letter and stalling leave it with me , i expect to have a new video (done by me) measuring the device for you all in 2 weeks.
stefan ill ring you when i can no need to ring now thats all the news i got :)
Thanks ash,
I'm greatful you are willing to follow my advice on this.
If there is a full length video (no cuts) made using dual
kilowatt meters, as to my instructions showing any OU,
I'll paypal you cash for the cost of the meters. (60$US)
It would be the least I could do. Thanks for following up
on this story. I think these trends I see on this site will
be the key to making our aspirations a reality. All of our
members are willing to work so hard to seek the answers
we need, and it makes me proud to belong to this forum!
Thank you again,
~Dingus Mungus
One of 3 things will and possibly are happening regarding this Chas fella.
a) ......he's spreading disinformation (paid-by/U.S. secret?) there by smearing mud on all that is possibly "free energy" by way of yet another "perpetual motion" fraud ?
b)......he will be succsessful in giving the World his working "free energy" device ?
c)......he has a working free energy prototype but unfortunately necessarily will be liquidated or just simply paid off $$$......as most are! (beats a coffin anytime)
The pursuit of OU is such a hotbed for conspiracy theorists. But the way I see it, I'm not letting go of this thread until Ash does. Let the chips fall where they may. Eventually, whether in this thread or another one, it's going to happen.
Great work, Ash! Keep on it.
--Mark.
That is one thing that kinda bugs me. This machine is supposed to be o/u but no one has tested it with a simple clamp on a/c amp meter?!? That would have been the first thing I did. Check the amperage draw going into the machine and test the current draw going out to the tools he supposedly ran off the machine, if in is less than out then you have o/u if not you don't. It seems the first logical test for a person to perform on a machine.
Quote from: d3adp00l on July 16, 2007, 11:08:21 PM
That is one thing that kinda bugs me. This machine is supposed to be o/u but no one has tested it with a simple clamp on a/c amp meter?!? That would have been the first thing I did. Check the amperage draw going into the machine and test the current draw going out to the tools he supposedly ran off the machine, if in is less than out then you have o/u if not you don't. It seems the first logical test for a person to perform on a machine.
Well its definitely putting out more amperage than in;
If it is indeed only a 800w AC motor...
At 100% conversion thats equivelent to 120v @ 6.66 amps. The working drill/saw would eat that up no prob. BUT! My assumption is he's depositing large ammounts of energy in to a flywheel and then the excess amperage would be coming from slowing down the flywheel. This is why I want the Killawatt meters to be used. So we can track by exact RMS wattage and power factor, and compare ALL input to ALL output. No time sampled multimeter will help disprove my theory. I've already offered to pay for the required meters. Now its just time to sit back and wait for evidence or the complete lack thereof.
~Dingus Mungus
Well what about this
After speaking with him for over 2 hours, (man the old dood can talk ::) ;D)
He said his secret in driving his electric motor is not to load the shaft what its rated for
IE, say his 800 watt 3/4 horse power motor is rated to spin at 1450 RPM
He said he never puts a load on it that REQUIRES 3/4 horse power and NEEDS to spin at 1450 RPM, (although can as obviously the 4 pole motor will any ways)
He said his pulleys always are made and load to not load the rating of the motor, this is ONE of his secrets and he states a good tip to keeping an electric efficient.
Now he has nearly finished his perpetual wheel, i convinced him to let us measure his motor Gen set, he has to re assemble it into, ill get the measurements for us all.
Ill be filming his Wheel which is run by 12 pool balls all numbered, i asked him if i can film it working then he can ope it to show no hidden DC gen
took a while but he agreed.
Should be i the next 2 weeks guys fingers crossed :-\
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 17, 2007, 09:52:54 PM
took a while but he agreed.
Should be i the next 2 weeks guys fingers crossed :-\
Just wanted to say thanks for the perseverance and effort your putting into this.
Any effort that CAN bring us closer to FE, is no effort wasted.
Quote from: tao on July 17, 2007, 09:56:46 PM
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 17, 2007, 09:52:54 PM
took a while but he agreed.
Should be i the next 2 weeks guys fingers crossed :-\
Just wanted to say thanks for the perseverance and effort your putting into this.
Any effort that CAN bring us closer to FE, is no effort wasted.
I fully agree! Thank you for all that you have and will continue to contribute.
Have you mentioned the killawatt meters to him? Do you plan on picking some up?
I would be willing to drop ship two meters to you in advance if money is a problem.
Altho I would be quite frustrated if they were not used in the mannor I've depicted.
Soon we'll know for sure,
~Dingus Mungus
Quote from: d3adp00l on July 16, 2007, 11:08:21 PM
That is one thing that kinda bugs me. This machine is supposed to be o/u but no one has tested it with a simple clamp on a/c amp meter?!? That would have been the first thing I did. Check the amperage draw going into the machine and test the current draw going out to the tools he supposedly ran off the machine, if in is less than out then you have o/u if not you don't. It seems the first logical test for a person to perform on a machine.
Hi Stefan, Marl, Dingez and All/
Problem is he is an OLD pensioner he doesn't have ANY equipment, sad but true we had to purchase all analog meters and digital ones and make a new box up for his motor and and OUR inverter.
He seems to think he can convince people with the LOAD only :-X
Also his latest attempt is based on his idea, that if people can se me produce a wheel turning only from gravity that they will think i can use the principle to produce power an dive him credibility.
Yes i know ;D , we need to work on hi, Im slowly getting him to take you guys device but its not easy, he is very pissed that people didn't investigate his device and thinks he is IMMORTAL (you know what i mean) since he has cracked OU.
So we are needed to help him and guide him, but its not going ot be as easy, we can try and put pressure on him, but he has a weak heart, so i guess we need to really convince him how critical the world needs a altruist to give one of these away.
your a soldier ash. why did he have the machine apart?
Dingus, thanks man, ill take a photo of what we have (meters,inverter etc) and run it by you to see if every one agrees,, might be okay but thanks,
this is going to need a collective effort, we are close now :)
Quote from: d3adp00l on July 17, 2007, 10:56:58 PM
your a soldier ash. why did he have the machine apart?
probably cause his machine swings in and out of OU,[according to chas, his new one doesn't) i told him we can just pulse the [OU] out put in time with the fly wheel and load and use it to put power into storage, but he ums and arrs ???
When we get the principle , there will be myriads of improvements which can be done, i say the RV will be the drive motor wanna bet ? ;D
Hi All, I'm brand new to this forum and thought I might be able to help. Chas's invention has caught my attention. I'm an electrician and I live about 30 minutes south of Brisbane, I can get a hold of Power-mate (what they have been using on ABC's carbon cops)and have clamp ammeters. LMK if I can be of assistance. Greg.
Welcome Greg!
Good to hear you're near the device and willing to help us check it out. You'll have to talk to Ash and find a way to get a meeting with Chas himelf. I'm sure if you express genuine intrest and awe, he'll be more than willing to show you his device.
;D Now we're cooking with fire... Two members in proximity: knowledge, experience, the right equipment and established raport with the inventor will bring us the answer. Hopefully we can have a propper input analysis and CoP estimate with in the week!
Ash just needs to let Chas know that knowing these numbers only makes him look better if it is OU... It can't hurt him or his cause, only strengthen it with fact and independent verification. While he begs for the attention of those who ignore him, we are drooling at the chance to proove him right. We can only hope Ash and our new member Greg can assure Chas of this soon.
I have a good feeling that we'll be getting an answer soon!
~Dingus Mungus
Hey guy's,
I'm from Sydney and am going to be in Brisbane/Gold Coast in mid-late August for a week, I'm an aircraft engineer and am also willing to have a look a Chas' machine while I'm up there if it helps any, Ash, let me know if I can be of assistance, we have to help this guy out.
If this thing is the real deal, i'll make one myself ;D
Cheers,
Brett.
If he is upset about people's lack of interest, then this is where he needs to be. Here is the interest and resources.
All we want is some more concrete numbers...
Something he should want as well.
:)
Hello
I am new to this forum and would like to understand some of what you are discussing. You see my Father is Chas Campbell and I have been watching from the sidelines and feel it is time for me to now speak with some of you gentlemen. Please reply at your convenience
Cie.
Welcome aboard Cie ;D .
Good to have you here.
Quote from: Cie on July 19, 2007, 06:56:15 AM
Hello
I am new to this forum and would like to understand some of what you are discussing. You see my Father is Chas Campbell and I have been watching from the sidelines and feel it is time for me to now speak with some of you gentlemen. Please reply at your convenience
Cie.
Welcome, we basically try to understand how this device work ;D
Welcome to the forum Cie,
As "the One" stated our goal here is to understand the device, but complimentry to the sites name our primary goal is to find proof of and scientificly document overunity devices. We're here to show the world it is possible. Not all inventors can propperly determine the important data needed for substantial proof of OU, we attempt to assist them in their measuring methods and possible equipment if the situation calls for it. We all await anxiously for more details about your fathers device.
Glad to have you here and involved!
~Dingus Mungus
thanks for the explanation, so my understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, you need Chas to have the machine verified by someone qualified to do so, then you would like to post instructions here on the site ( or other similar sites) for others to copy etc
Well primarily take the measurements for now...
If Chas was willing to make this device Open Source, then and only then would begin a worldwide effort to spread the device replication instructions. We're not looking to take this from him, only to know for sure what he does have.
~Dingus Mungus
and what is required to verify this and who would complete this process? My father has been advised of grants and assistance which he is in need of financially to complete this project, does this verification assist in these being approved?
Having one of our members propperly record all consumption will give the device an accurate CoP (Coefficient of performace) with that number we'll know exactly how much more energy the device is capable of producing. These numbers will either further solidify his claims or reveal any misconceptions about its operation, but I can't promise it will assist in obtaining any grants. Perhaps private funding... This site gives money to inventors who show substancial proof of an OU device all privately funded via the site ads and member donations. Something to keep in mind.
~Dingus Mungus
ok, Thank you for your assistance here. I am needed on an international conference call now with Nigeria. I look forward to perusing more posts here to help me comprehend this process and all it's associated applications.
kind regards
Cie
Welcome, Cie:
Like many of us here, I've been following this story since it was released on the news.
Part of what excited me is the fact that your dad tried to capture the attention of politicians and public in the way that he did... he sounds like someone who wants to make a real difference in the world. Regardless of whether or not his invention produces the efficiency we hope it does, that's an admirable quality.
Members of this group donate our time and resources with the hopes of taking control away from big businesses, and giving power back to the people. That's our agenda, and the guiding principle of this forum.
We're offering to help your dad, wherever we can, to prove scientifically that his apparatus produces more power than it consumes. But more importantly, I believe Stefan and the members of this board are inviting you and your dad to join us in what will become the most significant people's revolution in world history.
If your dad's invention works, that's terrific. If it doesn't, we're still honoured to have another great mind on board as we strive to achieve this goal.
Best wishes, Mark.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on July 19, 2007, 08:47:03 AM
Well primarily take the measurements for now...
If Chas was willing to make this device Open Source, then and only then would begin a worldwide effort to spread the device replication instructions. We're not looking to take this from him
~Dingus Mungus
On the subject of Open source, it is always worth remembering the
millionaires generated by Red Hat Linux when they floated on the
stock exchange.
Paul.
I guess I have some research to do then.I appreciate any further assistance that you can give to me on this matter. Ultimately I know my Father is wanting everyone to benefit by this invention, but I personally would like to see him benefit as well. He is, as you have noted,not in the best of health, so time is paramount.
What avenues do we need to traverse in order to guarantee that he is looked after in this process. Excuse my bluntness, but , as I mentioned, time really is paramount.
Quote from: Cie on July 19, 2007, 06:12:33 PM
I guess I have some research to do then.I appreciate any further assistance that you can give to me on this matter. Ultimately I know my Father is wanting everyone to benefit by this invention, but I personally would like to see him benefit as well. He is, as you have noted,not in the best of health, so time is paramount.
What avenues do we need to traverse in order to guarantee that he is looked after in this process. Excuse my bluntness, but , as I mentioned, time really is paramount.
Start with verification. If it is totally verified as OU, unequivocally, then you can move to the process of giving it to the world.
You say you hope that your father can benefit some from his invention, that would mean monetarily right? I'll tell you this now, he will NOT be able to patent the device and sell it as an OU device in the world marketplace. This just won't happen. Energy is the BIGGEST business in the world, trillions of $, so don't think that the people running those companies won't do ANYTHING they can to stop an OU device on the market, period. So, what is your next option for your father to benefit. Well, how much money would he need? If he needed something like 'thousands of $' then a simple website housing the instructions for your father's OU device, with a donation scheme or a paying scheme , would give him many thousands of dollars, quite easily. If you want to see him get 'millions of dollars', then you venture into other waters, potentially more dangerous waters. Although, if he did release the information via a website, and the link was passed around and people bought and SUCCESSFULLY replicated his OU device, the WORD would spread around the world VERY quickly that your father has invented an OU device, and you can be SURE that he would become quite famous. Fame, a lot of times, does bring fortune. Fortune via appearances, talks, consultations, whatever...
SO MANY people with authentic OU devices have come before your father, and they have been systematically shut down, harassed, and 'harmed'. So, if you are worried about his health, I suggest a method of information release that allows as many people to see his device AS OU, AND REPLICATED, and this should be done as quick as possible. If he does have an OU device, and markets it as such, the BEST thing he could do initially for his own health is to release the information to as much people as possible, via whatever medium.
I think being a world savior would allow him some sorts of rewards and 'monetary assistance' ;)...........
Its getting deep in here.
Sounds to me like the primary goal is to lock down money. This forum is more about finding answers to help everyone. We all would like to understand how the device works so the world can kick its oil addiction and loosen the grasp of big business. But it seems that development capital is what you want Cie, that being the case I would take it that sharing of the idea is out of the question. Good luck on your pursuit Cie, if there is anything you and your father would like to share or discuss we're here for ya.
Quote from: d3adp00l on July 20, 2007, 01:56:33 AM
Its getting deep in here.
Sounds to me like the primary goal is to lock down money. This forum is more about finding answers to help everyone. We all would like to understand how the device works so the world can kick its oil addiction and loosen the grasp of big business. But it seems that development capital is what you want Cie, that being the case I would take it that sharing of the idea is out of the question. Good luck on your pursuit Cie, if there is anything you and your father would like to share or discuss we're here for ya.
Even more importantly though...
Money comes only after replication and confirmation by a third party. He says he has a working prototype that is OU already. When he does proove that conclusively money will not be an issue. Once there is solid proof of a high output OU device, private funding will litterally pour in from arround the world. The precursor required is proof. If he continues working in person with qualified members on this board, the proof will be brought to light. Putting that off to look for a buyer is probably the worst course of action available to you.
Firstly without a patent they'll throw you out and possibly privately patent it themselves. Second, getting a patent for an OU device is hugely difficult, time consuming, and expensive. Thirdly if time is paramount, and the patent process takes years... Why not here why not now?
Rhetorical questions to consider:
How are those "options" any better? What happens when you do find a corporate buyer? Do you think they'll be selling devices anytime soon? Do think they'll show the world how to live totally free and sovereign lives? Do you believe the proccess will be so quick that your father will be able to enjoy the money anytime soon?
Please don't let greed kill one more possible solution. This same exact senario has happened a thousand times before... I don't know if you're speaking for your father or thinking for yourself, but we (the members) should really wait to hear from Ash after his next visit to Chas, as I would prefer to hear what Chas wants to do at this juncture.
~Dingus Mungus
Again this board is international, why not tell all of the energy money grubbers to stuff it all over the world at the same time.By the way I might add, read the quote at the bottom of my message, that is fact, they have DESTROYED ideas,people,families, and nations to keep their grip tight.
Thats a really great quote btw...
Thats just one of the many reasons I'm here.
its been 10-11 days. what are the current news about this, please?
Hi all,
Chas assures me he is doing okay and is still working. His Son casey has also contacted me, i am also going to talk to him and chas about creating a trusted non disclosure agreement with who ever he trusts.
This will be announced publicly to ensure security and safety, and forestall and possible interference relating to the current economic and political conditions.
Once we announce chas has given plans to his trusted source under non disclosure , this will steer away any attention 'they' will give to him.
Regards
Ashtweth
Hi Ash,
I hope you can visit Chas soon and have a first hand look at his device
and report back to over here.
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan.
"trusted non disclosure agreement"
Another one bites the dust!
~Dingus Mungus
Have fun selling humanities future to the highest bidder!
Hi Dingus,
No you might not know what was meant.
This is for security , the concept is Chas goes ahead with his OWN plan to disclose and acquire funding through grant foundations. A trusted person (chosen by Chas) under non disclosure (so they hold the information and do not go against Chas's wishes) hold the information as back up.
This will discourage interference towards Chas's, in other words there is no point in picking on an old age pensioner as the plans will get disclosed if they do.
understand?
What I understand is that he does not intend to share the technology nor give it away via open source release. His solution is that two people will now know how the device works, but thats so he can get a free engineer to verify his CoP so he can use that data to sell the idea. Grants are not typically given to overunity research, so what I understand is he will be looking for investors. Forget that. I've seen this routine many times, and nothing ever comes of it. He has a working device!!! What does he need grant aka research money for?
Before someone flames me for my observation, I really hope I'm wrong.
~Dingus Mungus
Dingus, i think your observations need clarification.
NO you have never seen any one take a device to the CURRENT interested grant foundations, for example, the fuller institute , Virgin and many others who current [upon further clarification] are interested in granting this device.
This we [the non profit org] have confirmation from them and many sources interested in granting Chas's device., this will enable Chas to receive some renumeration and get his device out there.
Take note:
On the TV Chas stated, that if the government and others investigated or asked him how it was done he was quiet happy to give it to them.
This never happened, Chas was unaware of the coal contracts, for example they are about to spend 27 million on widening the train tracks here so they can sell more coal.
Chas was also un prepared for the current political, scientific and economic climate, hence we are lucky we got to him in time.
chas never stated he was going to give YOU the device open sourced, so you are reading it wrong, lets give him a chance i do not think he will let us down.
Main thing we need to focus on is getting verifiable data, so the grant foundations can grant him and we can help him disseminate the technology, UNDER SECURITY.
I take it from your last to posts you are not really reading 100% rational., please read carefully, and understand what the situation is, any one can tell via casual observation thanks dingus.
Edit
dingus man i know its frustrating :-\, that an open sourced device could end corruption, end the politics and end the slavery SAVE OUR KIDS, but human nature isn't as easy to tweak :-\, i would trust you would release it same as i would Bro.
but i have allot of confidence in Chas and i feel im going to back him to do the right thing by us and get it out there no matter what. Time will tell.
David de Rothschild CEO of "Sculpt the Future" is also giving away "a ton of money" for green energy devices. Good luck with that...
Hi Dingus
encase you didn't see my edit in my post check it out at the bottom ;)
Thanks man, sure would love to back rothchild into a corner, he is a NWO man, it would be funny presenting Chas's device to him in front the public , he would have to endorse it to save face.
if it's not open source technology then forget it!!! >:(
peace
ash like I said your a soldier, hang in there. but one of the many things I do is analyze probabilities, and to be blunt, when someone keeps an idea to themselves the probability of the outcome increases dramatically in two areas, neither do much good. Keep doing what your doing, my prayers are with you.
@FreeEnerg
Okay try to understand the situation, :)
Seeking a disclosure through grant foundations will ensure a RELEASE, And after granting it , Chas would be quite happy to disclose it FREE, this is the impression i got.You are saying if its not open sourced forget it as it will never get out there this we know based upon 4 years of research!
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EnergySuppression.htm
Look at how many cases to even today exist.
These conditions exist today we recently spoke to Bios fuel who although have a device now cannot market it. So yes we know and Chas im sure is not ignorant enough to know what he is dealing with.
lets just sit tight guys
Quote from: d3adp00l on August 02, 2007, 03:21:48 AM
ash like I said your a soldier, hang in there. but one of the many things I do is analyze probabilities, and to be blunt, when someone keeps an idea to themselves the probability of the outcome increases dramatically in two areas, neither do much good. Keep doing what your doing, my prayers are with you.
yeah but we are dealing with Chas Campbell here an individual ;D ;)
(thanks man)
the only way an ensure RELEASE can happen is if he opens his mouth to the public in a mass scale rapidly! start with overunity.com, freeenergynews.com, osen.org, etc. have a an open source diagram/video as he makes it widely and massively open source.
I fully understand that Chas needs to be paid... IMHO I'm still waiting on the device CoP, but this latest twist will only make the release of information slower and more "mysterous". I've seen this senario before many times. It has nothing to do with Chas, his device, you, anything, the only thing I'm basing my assumptions on is the pattern of events. Chas has to do this I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that he's on the same path as all the others who failed before him.
~Dingus Mungus
The snag that always blocks genuine OU devices from becoming known is simple selfishness and greed. Let me cover my ass first and then maybe you can have it mentality.
Throughout time our mythologies have presented a selfless person who is willing to sacrifice their own life for the benefit of mankind.
Perhaps that is the key. Nature will allow global OU, only when we have evolved to mirror our mythologies.
It seems we are not there yet. Maybe we never will be.
j
Getting back on topic ;D
here are the measurement boxes finished and ready to go, we blew our inverter up so have a new one coming, also Greg an electrician (one of us really) will help us all by doing an independent assessment.
Here are Earls recommended boxes, with the caps, and analog and digital meter capacity.
Hi Ash, great to see these boxes.
Hopefully you can go soon there and make the measurements.
Good luck.
Regards, Stefan.
So ash just to clarify, does this thing run on ac and produce dc? or does it run on ac and produce ac?
Okay just to clarify, Chas runs an 800 watt induciton motor form the 50 hertz AC mains, to this he is driving(via his gravity/flywheels) a 3.5kva alternator, (AC in, and AC out)
So already to get power out of a 3500 watt alternator you need at least 2 HP? maybe more, so already is OU. His motor is aobut 3/4 HP. As we want to silence and educate the skeptics , we opted to go DC in and DC out.
we can produce a DC reading via an inverter, and also rectify the AC into DC at the alternator out put. Simple as saying OU.
I think simple ac clamp meters would be much much easier. heck just pull a couple watthour meters from a savage yard. But anyway you want to do it, go for it. For ease sake 746 watts=1 hp, soo 800/746= 1.07 or after heat loses 1 hp. 3500 watts (mind you thats only if you are using 3500watts, just turning the alternator takes almost nothing) 3500/746=4.69 hp or 4.5hp after loses. Or a total possible of 450% ou at a maintained max output, must be maintained, not just a momentum storage energy of moving mass. Good luck ash.
Thanks man, we need that sort of data to put on the video. Sure i have a fancy digital AC meter which we can compare to the DC readings too :)
At least we know with DC there is no voltage phase angle and power factor stuff ;D
"Chas runs an 800 watt induciton motor form the 50 hertz AC mains" Means that, the unit consumes conventional electricity from net to run? If yes, this looks not so elegant to me, although it's possible that it's overunity. An autarc/isolated system which also runs in Africa's desert to serve a water pump, would be better - like a real "bessler wheel" has to be able to do mechanically. What when electricity is shut down?
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on July 17, 2007, 08:47:20 PM
My assumption is he's depositing large ammounts of energy in to a flywheel and then the excess amperage would be coming from slowing down the flywheel. This is why I want the Killawatt meters to be used. So we can track by exact RMS wattage and power factor, and compare ALL input to ALL output. No time sampled multimeter will help disprove my theory. I've already offered to pay for the required meters. Now its just time to sit back and wait for evidence or the complete lack thereof.
I hope you plan to measure ALL the power consumed when spinning up that huge flywheel. How much does that thing weigh I wonder... I bet all the weight is out on the edge too. I just hope you take complete measurements before you claim OU on this device. I see some analog panel meters... I did offer to assist with propper Wh meters, but for some reason his input/output is measured real time samples only.
???
If I spin a 100 kilo flywheel up to 10,000 rpm, then I could shut off the motor and extract quite a lot of power while it slowed down. Flywheels store energy just like a leaky cap. You need to make sure you take a propper measurement of all input and all output collectively! Anything less is inconclusive.
~Dingus Mungus
latest email i got
everything going to plan new devise should be ready for public display very soon thanks Chas.
Hi
my name is mark,
I am a member of the NEC and have studied, tested and sometimes debunked mag motors.
I live 2 hours from Brisbane and can supply any instruments you need for proper testing.
I work mainly in the hydrogen field overseas, but have some knowledge of magnetic motors.
I feel liberty has a good device but I keep running out of time to meet him in the states.
I am also available to organise a film crew and scientific team or any other assistance you need to validate this technology.
Because of the potential of the the flywheel I feel this test should be measured under some load for some time.
I also feel a dc motor would be ideal as it would assist in the power in, power out equation.
Appart from liberty's electromagnetic device I am only aware of one other truely magnetic motor or device that self runs without any electrical imput. My observations in all of electromagnetic devices I have examined is that they are unable to opperate in a closed loop situation. If they did opperate as claimed then they would be able to do this.
Most pure magnetic motors that have run, fail when load is applied to them.
Sorry about the rave...I do wish Chas all the best and as offered can provide the personel and equipment needed when you are ready to validate.
Mark
I watch the video about 20 times it's simple as it is, it's like transmition in the car
I have fiat with eurodisel multijet engine I made some test I find
3 gear speed 50-60 km/h tork 2800 7l-7.5l/100km
4 gear speed 70-80 km/h tork 2700 5.8l-6.4l/100km
most efficient is in 5 gear with speed of 80km/h tork about 2600 with 4.5l-6l/100km
It's same when u rich this speed 80km the motor need less power to maintain this speed
This wheel look like big transmition to me just he find the right balance
Quote from: markdansie on August 03, 2007, 08:19:49 AM
Hi
my name is mark,
I am a member of the NEC and have studied, tested and sometimes debunked mag motors.
I live 2 hours from Brisbane and can supply any instruments you need for proper testing.
I work mainly in the hydrogen field overseas, but have some knowledge of magnetic motors.
I feel liberty has a good device but I keep running out of time to meet him in the states.
I am also available to organise a film crew and scientific team or any other assistance you need to validate this technology.
Because of the potential of the the flywheel I feel this test should be measured under some load for some time.
I also feel a dc motor would be ideal as it would assist in the power in, power out equation.
Appart from liberty's electromagnetic device I am only aware of one other truely magnetic motor or device that self runs without any electrical imput. My observations in all of electromagnetic devices I have examined is that they are unable to opperate in a closed loop situation. If they did opperate as claimed then they would be able to do this.
Most pure magnetic motors that have run, fail when load is applied to them.
Sorry about the rave...I do wish Chas all the best and as offered can provide the personel and equipment needed when you are ready to validate.
Mark
Mark, do you have a reference, or some description of the other magnetic motor/device you are aware of from your statement above:
"Appart from liberty's electromagnetic device I am only aware of one other truely magnetic motor or device that self runs without any electrical imput"
Thanks.
I m sceptic about this any news about Chas Campbell
on the clip ,, Gift to the world,, I don't know what is he waiting
Hi to all,
When I first saw Chas Champell setup I remembered Don Martin's setup.
Don Martin (5 years ago or so) drived also a higher rated alternator with a lower rated motor, he also made rotating faster the generator than the motor: the motor drive a motorbike wheel and that wheel moved a much smaller concrete wheel which drived the generator.
Perhaps they have something in common.
Quote from: Phil_M2 on August 04, 2007, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: markdansie on August 03, 2007, 08:19:49 AM
Appart from liberty's electromagnetic device I am only aware of one other truely magnetic motor or device that self runs without any electrical imput.
Mark
Mark, do you have a reference, or some description of the other magnetic motor/device you are aware of from your statement above:
Mark
I was long searching (and experimenting) for a truly magnetic motor but I could not find a functional one.
It doesn?t make much difference to me if it fails or not when under a load. A device that overcomes its own friction is more than sufficient to make a point about magnets. As far as I know, none is working, that?s why I?d very much appreciate your input on this.
Many thanks,
Tinu
Quote from: syncron on August 11, 2007, 05:56:21 PM
Hi to all,
When I first saw Chas Champell setup I remembered Don Martin's setup.
Don Martin (5 years ago or so) drived also a higher rated alternator with a lower rated motor, he also made rotating faster the generator than the motor: the motor drive a motorbike wheel and that wheel moved a much smaller concrete wheel which drived the generator.
Perhaps they have something in common.
Yes...they do! It is the ability to delude themselves and others. Let's be reasonable about this, people! These are standard motor and generator. Neither is close to even 100% efficient on its own. Systems of gears, flywheels, pullies, belts, etc. are never 100% efficient either. So what in the world makes people believe that, by putting together a number of lossy elements, the system will have suddenly achieved over 100% efficiency?
Let's get real! If any one series element or subsystem in this or any proposed OU machine's power train can output more energy than it receives, why would any other elements be needed? If Charles' magic flywheel was actually adding free torque energy to the system, it would be far more impressive to just watch it spin by itself! But it won't. Because it doesn't.
I can understand people being confused and curious when some new magical theory is proposed involving exotic physics speculations and mysterious unseen forces...there is a thick fog to get lost in there. But the idea that the maximum ratings printed on the nameplates of motors and generators can yield, just by driving a big generator with a small motor, OU...that is pure insanity and...well...really dumb.
A motor rated 800W maximum and drawing 800W is not going to drive a generator rated 3500W max under full load no matter what kinds of gearing up or down you do between them. If that were possible, we would be using milliwatt photocells and Radio Shack mini-motors to drive huge multimegawatt generators.
I lose all respect for the critical thinking ability of people willing to chase these obviously stupid ideas that are so clearly unworkable and that don't even propose any even implausible theory! There has to be some mystery, at least, for my interest to be tweaked! The only mysteries with 90% of the schemes proposed on this forum are how anyone could be foolish enough to have even the mildest interest and what form of mental disorder the "inventor" is suffering from!
I'm shocked that "serious OU experimenters" could be so sincere in their interest for such transparently stupid obviouly unworksble schemes that are based on ignoring common sense and the most fundamental obvious principals of physical reality.
Next, someone will tell you they have figured out how to tug on their own butt in a way that lifts them into the sky and you'll be getting all excited about it!
We are trying to find subtle yet earth-shattering exceptions to accepted, never-yet-defied laws of physics! To extract energy from the seething sub-particle vacuum!
It is not going to happen by lashing together a couple of store-bought dynamos with fancy-painted belts and pullies!
LOL
Quote from: sevich on July 16, 2007, 08:31:16 AM
One of 3 things will and possibly are happening regarding this Chas fella.
a) ......he's spreading disinformation (paid-by/U.S. secret?) there by smearing mud on all that is possibly "free energy" by way of yet another "perpetual motion" fraud ?
b)......he will be succsessful in giving the World his working "free energy" device ?
c)......he has a working free energy prototype but unfortunately necessarily will be liquidated or just simply paid off $$$......as most are! (beats a coffin anytime)
What about the other obvious possibility?
d) He is a kind old well-meaning and good-hearted codger suffering from dementia and extreme self-delusion. The device is not OU or even close, but he has never actually made any energy measurements. Only brief anecdotal power demonstrations. He truly thinks it is producing more energy than it consumes, based on purely wishful thinking and flawed, inaccurate non-measurements and hallucinatory observations.
Sadly, I would say this is by far the most likely of the possibilities. I suppose we shall know soon if he allows actual measurements to be made. Let us hope those making the measurements are not subject to skewed observation syndrome or, even worse, the dreaded "operator impedance". Ashtweth doesn't exactly sound unbiased, somehow! He's definitely "a believer", I guess. Hope springs eternal...
Watching the tape, keep the following in mind...
1) He keeps the little fan and light on (maybe 200W total) for a minute or so during the demonstration, then runs drill and saw for maybe 5 seconds.
2) All of this happens well after the system has been running with no load and the magic flywheel is up to speed.
3) The 800w motor will be able draw far over 800w for a few seconds of heavy loading, no problem.
4) The flywheel(s) could easily store enough energy to cover the startup surges of the drill and saw motors and maybe even their entire 5 second running load times.
If we assume there is nothing hidden or fraudulent and that the total power drawn with fan, light bulb, drill and saw all doing work is greater than 800w,
then we could only be legitimately impressed if he ran them continuously for a time well beyond the time constant of the flywheel
and we also knew for sure that the 800w motor was drawing less than 800w the whole time.
Nothing about the video indicates the slightest of amazing phenomena. Nothing in the least bit out of the ordinary or remarkable there at all. Sorry folks!
Hi Tinu,
I hope to confirm in person shortly the device I mentioned. There are three variations of it at the moment I know that work. However nothing like seeing it in person. The theory behind it stacks up as it has used an approach not used by others.
The other devices I have seen here and elsewhere rely on on of the following three things and in most cases fail to overcome the sticking point.
1. Electromagnetic nulification
2. mechanical movement (IE shifting a staor mag out of the way)
3. Shielding.
the device I will be inspecting soon does none of the baove and has run for many days before being stopped.
The next big test is to see if the magnets lose any energy under load. Thats the real ball braker.
I will keep you informed.
Mark
I am amazed over and over again at the circus of folly here. The measurement techniques being suggested will assuredly provide incorrect data. The idea of DC measurement on both ends is bogus because it, of necessity, includes the losses of an inverter on the input side and the losses of a rectifier/capacitor on the output side.
This leaves room for a bunch more endless hemming and hawing if it fails to show OU...blaming it on these factors. Also, if the system contains any energy storage device (and all rotating or moving masses store energy) then measuring power in and power out proves nothing unless the respective powers are integrated over time...equal time and the complete running time including start-up from totally static zero-energy off resting state and back to fully run down, discharged, stopped state when test is over. All the energy from start to finish must be accounted for.
Adding more energy storage devices (input inverter with internal caps and a huge output capacitor) only complicates the measuring process, because residual energy stored in these entities must be accounted for also.
Measuring power is not the same thing as measuring energy! COP or OU is an energy phenomena, not a power phenomena! I can get tens of thousands of watts out of a capacitor that I only put milliwatts into...anyone can! Just charge it up slowly and discharge it suddenly! The only person who seems to understand this here is Dingus Mungus.
There is only one way to accurately measure electrical energy that I know of. Also, in a time-sense there really is no such thing as DC. All electrical voltages and currents vary if you look at them over a long enough period. Especially when starting up motors and any other load that stores energy!
Here is what scientists who really want to know the answers do:
1) Make sure there is no known stored energy present in the system to be measured before starting up. This means no kinetics...masses moving, springs compressed, and no electrical...capacitors charged up, charged batteries, etc.
2) Using actual multiplying/integrating energy meters (a.k.a. multiplying watthour meters) that multiply instantaneous voltage by instantaneous current with a much higher bandwidth than the system's input and output power frequencies (10x minimum, more is better) and then continuously integrate the ExI product over time, accumulating a true powerxtime integral, measure the total input and output energies. This is the only method that is scientifically accurate because it includes power factor, crest factor, waveshape, transients, distortions and surges and measures real-time instantaneous actual power integrated over time.
3) Input and output energy measurement integration periods must be simultaneous and begin before the system is initially energized and end only when the system is turned off and returnes to a fully static, discharged state.
Now, with all of that said, I understand that is probably too rigorous for this forum and its members' resources...at least I'm sure that would be everyone's gut answer to what seem like wildly impractical and expensive suggestions from a skeptical armchair smart-ass know-it-all newbie. Well, it's true I suppose.
However, if I were to add up the value of the man-hours spent on arguing about how best to measure energy COP of a given electrical system, then add in the man-hours spent making and reporting bogus measurements and, worst of all, the man-hours spent by replicators chasing non-existent goals based on bad measurement of the original work, the cost of a truly accurate electrical energy measurement setup would pale in comparison. Even if the man-hours were counted at $2 per hour!
Sometimes it really seems to me that much more effort is spent obscuring facts and confusing issues here than is spent trying to actually sort the wheat from the chaff. It seems like, deep inside, even those of you who are the most true believers must have secret fearful doubts that you'd rather not confront, based on the number of ways people here come up with insane delaying tactics, doomed measurement techniques and the philosophy that building and replicating things (always from incomplete information) is the only way to get the first idea whether they will work or not. It almost seems like people know the whole perpetual motion field is a fraud, but will do anything to prolong even the most unreasonable of hopes. It's all so much fun!
Quote from: Humbugger on August 12, 2007, 06:56:47 AM
more effort is spent obscuring facts and confusing issues here than is spent trying to actually sort the wheat from the chaff.
How can you talk of seperation of wheat & chaff when you yourself have no wheat to offer this forum other than your negative chaff (charm) :D
Quote from: sevich on August 12, 2007, 07:51:10 AM
Quote from: Humbugger on August 12, 2007, 06:56:47 AM
more effort is spent obscuring facts and confusing issues here than is spent trying to actually sort the wheat from the chaff.
How can you talk of seperation of wheat & chaff when you yourself have no wheat to offer this forum other than your negative chaff (charm) :D
Like I said...most of you seem to want to find more and more desperate ways to justify your apparent belief that every sincere-sounding claim is pure wheat, no matter the enormous and ever-growing evidence to the contrary that surrounds you. Go figure!
The blowing away and burning off of the chaff, in all fields of true knowledge, especially science and technology, is the largest contribution to revealing and accessing the wheat! ;)
Isn't the whole purpose of the forum to share knowledge and hopefully figure out some way to build
working machines people can get and use for their daily energy needs? Do you really think the only way to figure out if things will work or not is to build them? Don't you see that every single one of the thousands of ideas that have been built have not yielded any actual useful energy or replaced one btu of energy from conventional sources?
In all of recorded history, has that been done even once? Not that I know of...if you know where I can get one, please tell me. I'm tired of paying for energy. The process of elimination, when evolved beyond simply trying everything, is called learning from history and not repeating the same futile mistakes over and over again forever.
All I'm trying to point out is that these failed approaches, by the thousands, seem to have a lot in common that we might actually learn from. The hope being that one day we might be able to recognize a bogus idea we have eliminated before and not waste time building and testing and speculating about the same Rube Goldberg contraptions over and over, just because it is thinly disguised as a new idea.
In science and technologies, we use analogies with abstraction, math and critical thinking to observe and study ideas so that we can decide which ideas are worthy of further experiment and work. The most valuable asset in the game is being able to quickly recognize the deja vu on a thinly-veiled bad idea and toss it out. I see very little of that going on here.
It's all ga ga gung ho believers with zero evidence of anything to believe in and who seem not to have developed or come to value any critical analysis skills. It's as if thinking about or expressing reasons why something won't work was taboo here! Even if that something has been shown not to work a dozen or a thousand times before! It's the precise opposite of developing a knowledge base! Cannot you people learn to develop any critical thinking skills? Must you only worship blind physical efforts to build hardware and yet curse all efforts to test ideas by thinking and abstractly comparing and applying well-known simple principals? It appears not.
See Slide 16 of
http://www.energyfromair.com/beijing/taiwan2a.htm.
See also the post at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg44047.html#msg44047
We know that the Chas Campbell Motor is a gravity machine because we saw and explained something similar at Tsing Hua Unversity in October 2006. We used the Lee-Tseung theory to explain the source of energy.
Chas Campbell could increase the efficiency via the use of Cylinders instead of the flywheels.
Lawrence Tseung
Discussion of the Chas Campbell machine Leads Out Memories of the Tsing Hua Electricity Magnifier.
@Humbugger:
You miss the point.
For instance you can buy a Griggs Hydrosonic pump and it is a confirmed overunity heating system with a COP of 1.5.
You can take a hot shower in the Alabama Fire department for instance, where it is installed and saves them money by heating their water...
Back to Chas:
His device works probably simular to a Bessler Wheel using and converting gravity and centrifugal forces.
I hope Ashtweth can soon see the machibe in person and can take new videos.
Blind belief in unsubstantiated claims and silly theories leads out endless wasted time and effort from naive followers.
A total lack of critical thinking skills mixed with many competing neurotic egos leads out a huge public body of false-knowledge and delusion.
Bad science taught by posing gurus leads out confused believers who will never succeed in accomplishing real progress.
Skepticism leads out critical thinking skills from intelligent beings.
Skepticism leads out anger and hatred from blind believers.
LOL! All hail humbugger...
WOW if only someone would have come sooner to warn me!
Now I'm free to watch dancing with the stars like most Americans...
::)
Do you really believe your the first skeptic goon to show up here???
You must be dense... LOL!
There are lots of silly FOS guru's running around here, and their theories are crap, that much I agree with. Overunity on the other hand, has been achieved in over a dozen technologies. All overunity means is more output than user input. We've been over this before and Stephan has also explained it to you... So of course the science community claims there are no overunity devices. Every time a new OU device is discovered, once we understand where the excess FREE energy is coming from, the total FE devices number returns to zero again. Hence we're hunting for CoP>1 or the "holy grail" which is excess energy that can not be explained.
I hope you at least consider doing some experiments if you plan on hanging around for any prolonged ammount of time.
~Dingus Mungus
Quote from: hartiberlin on August 12, 2007, 08:49:35 AM
@Humbugger:
You miss the point.
For instance you can buy a Griggs Hydrosonic pump and it is a confirmed overunity heating system with a COP of 1.5.
You can take a hot shower in the Alabama Fire department for instance, where it is installed and saves them money by heating their water...
Back to Chas:
His device works probably simular to a Bessler Wheel using and converting gravity and centrifugal forces.
I hope Ashtweth can soon see the machibe in person and can take new videos.
Stefan,
Show me a Bessler Wheel that spins on its own indefinitely and from which useful energy can be drawn. The physics of heat pumps are well known and well understood, as is the source of their output energy. They do not defy any of the basic laws of thermodynamics.
Why would you, who seem like an intelligent man, give the same credence to a Bessler Wheel (every attempt at which has failed to spin on its own or provide useful output) and things like Meheer's motor (which was the most absolutely clear and transparent case of self-delusion due to bad science I've seen here yet) with machines that are well within classic physics, like the heat pump?
Could it be that you encourage every idea equally without applying critical thinking in order to grow a larger and more profitable website? Is it really thought of as a crime here to be critical of obviously foolish ideas?
I applaud your endeavor and, obviously I find it interesting. If you are trying to build a knowledge base, however, it would behoove you to encourage an atmosphere of actual scientific approach, including good hard logical intelligent skepticism where it is called for and possibly some effort to help users learn the basics of the electronics and physics laws they are trying so hard to defy.
I don't see how it benefits the effort toward achieving energy revolution by encouraging people to rebuild over and over ideas that have been shown both by scientific analysis and by prior cut and try methods not to work. I guess, however, if you eliminated all the thinly-disguised variations on ridiculously futile themes, there would not be much left here though, would there? :-\
Humbugger please explain to us how cavitation in refrence to sonochemistry works.
You know, with convential physics...
;)
~Dingus Mungus
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 12, 2007, 09:04:37 AM
LOL! All hail humbugger...
WOW if only someone would have come sooner to warn me!
Now I'm free to watch dancing with the stars like most Americans...
::)
Do you really believe your the first skeptic goon to show up here???
You must be dense... LOL!
There are lots of silly FOS guru's running around here, and their theories are crap, that much I agree with. Overunity on the other hand, has been achieved in over a dozen technologies. All overunity means is more output than user input. We've been over this before and Stephan has also explained it to you... So of course the science community claims there are no overunity devices. Every time a new OU device is discovered, once we understand where the excess FREE energy is coming from, the total FE devices number returns to zero again. Hence we're hunting for CoP>1 or the "holy grail" which is excess energy that can not be explained.
I hope you at least consider doing some experiments if you plan on hanging around for any prolonged ammount of time.
~Dingus Mungus
Please suggest an area you would choose to begin experimenting in. My expertise is in power and control electronics; 40 years commercial product design and government R&D labs. I'd like to play with something I have some belief will actually work and which has a well-stated theory of operation behind it. I have found nothing here so far that excites me enough to start playing with hardware. Show me the way!
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 12, 2007, 09:22:14 AM
Humbugger please explain to us how cavitation in refrence to sonochemistry works.
You know, with convential physics...
;)
~Dingus Mungus
I can't, can you? I have never claimed to be a physicist. I am, as I said an electronic product design veteran of 40 years. I am good at spotting BS in that area. I know it's one of the areas of research involving so-called cold fusion. There are lots of things I don't know, and I have no problem admitting that freely.
I guess that's part of what ticks me off so much when people full of BS gather huge followings while speaking pure gibberish and lead the naive experimenters down garden paths to nowhere over and over and over. I mean, doesn't anyone else here see this recurring pattern? Shouldn't there be some effort to point out the similarities and pitfalls? Am I a goon because I'm not a panting naive believer?
People misunderstand my skepticism. I'm not ripping into the mysterious areas where there are far-out but possible future developments. I'm bombarding those threads where I find it clear and obvious that the "inventor" is deluding himself and others and clearly using bad math or bad terminology in conjunction with an obviously unworkable idea, yet, amazingly, gathering eager believers and replicators despite it all.
Mehess was a perfect example. His whole deal was based on this insane time/energy/power shell game where he had convinced himself that he could get more energy out of a spring than he put into it. He fooled himself into believing without doing good measurements or good math. His only stated principal was that his clock mechanism gave him such a long time to gather the rewinding energy that (no matter how tiny a rate of energy recovery he got out of his pendulum/magnet/coil) he would, of course, be able to rewind the spring because he had 31 days to gather the little pulses and only had to spend one big pulse for ten seconds each month!
He proceeded to announce to the world, without taking the time to do the math or finish building the unit, that he had achieved OU and that it was, using his amazing principal of unwinding a spring real slow and winding it real fast, he had solved the world's energy problems once and for all.
That was it...no other operating principal...no other stated secret advantage, real or imagined. He proceeded, measuring his recovered energy in "volts per minute" and making all kinds of obvious thought-blunders right in public. Everybody encouraged him on and on. People, including Stefan, egged him on despite the obviousness of his errors.
It's just the kind of thing I couldn't sit there and watch without saying something.
Quote from: Humbugger on August 12, 2007, 09:25:34 AM
Please suggest an area you would choose to begin experimenting in. My expertise is in power and control electronics; 40 years commercial product design and government R&D labs. I'd like to play with something I have some belief will actually work and which has a well-stated theory of operation behind it. I have found nothing here so far that excites me enough to start playing with hardware. Show me the way!
Hmmmmmmmm... You could be a very useful member than... The trick is knowing we only know what we've actually experimented with the rest is assumed in most cases. My best example of this is that Ohms law only applys to some circuit designs accurately, but in some rare cases old complicated faraday's law is required. This inconsistancy shows me that we don't fully understand electricity. Anyone who has studied TEM vrs LMD wave dynamics would know there is still much to learn. Perhaps you'd be best suited to help us further research Longitudinal or scalar wave research. There is much research already available related to the unconventional effects of these wave types, but not a real conventional understanding nor a vast ammount of public research available. Please look in to it if interested, as I would understand it this is a topic that may change your views on the current subject of debate. Also I would suggest the rotoverter as I plan to begin work on that soon. I have no way to confirm the claims as of yet, but based on the activity surrounding the device I can only assume its given efficiency calculations are mostly legit. I only say mostly, as some of the replicators may not posess the propper measuring equipment, and a few people are claiming OU now.
As for cavitaion effects in sonochemistry question... It was a trick question... No one has propperly explained it yet. If you or I could explain it in full, we would win a nobel prize.
Definitely be a skeptic... Its healthy for the mind. BUT you don't want to be the assumption troll. I've had to change my mind on several devices once I took the time to further analyze them, and sometimes its better to give a guru enough rope to hang themselves by not speaking up untill its blatently obvious. Otherwise people will assume you're only here to distract and flame others work while not doing any of your own.
I hope you consider joining one of the projects here,
~Dingus Mungus
Quote from: Humbugger on August 12, 2007, 09:28:11 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 12, 2007, 09:22:14 AM
Humbugger please explain to us how cavitation in refrence to sonochemistry works.
You know, with convential physics...
;)
~Dingus Mungus
I can't, can you? I have never claimed to be a physicist. I am, as I said an electronic product design veteran of 40 years. I am good at spotting BS in that area. I know it's one of the areas of research involving so-called cold fusion. There are lots of things I don't know, and I have no problem admitting that freely.
I guess that's part of what ticks me off so much when people full of BS gather huge followings while speaking pure gibberish and lead the naive experimenters down garden paths to nowhere over and over and over. I mean, doesn't anyone else here see this recurring pattern? Shouldn't there be some effort to point out the similarities and pitfalls? Am I a goon because I'm not a panting naive believer?
LOL! Wow this post changed dramaticly...
EDIT:
Actually search for "VANDUGEGS" that guy is definitely a scammer... Maybe you can help us chase off the known jokers who are actually asking people for money. When will these dummies learn they need to fund their own "unconventional" research.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 03, 2007, 06:38:03 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on July 17, 2007, 08:47:20 PM
My assumption is he's depositing large ammounts of energy in to a flywheel and then the excess amperage would be coming from slowing down the flywheel. This is why I want the Killawatt meters to be used. So we can track by exact RMS wattage and power factor, and compare ALL input to ALL output. No time sampled multimeter will help disprove my theory. I've already offered to pay for the required meters. Now its just time to sit back and wait for evidence or the complete lack thereof.
I hope you plan to measure ALL the power consumed when spinning up that huge flywheel. How much does that thing weigh I wonder... I bet all the weight is out on the edge too. I just hope you take complete measurements before you claim OU on this device. I see some analog panel meters... I did offer to assist with propper Wh meters, but for some reason his input/output is measured real time samples only.
???
If I spin a 100 kilo flywheel up to 10,000 rpm, then I could shut off the motor and extract quite a lot of power while it slowed down. Flywheels store energy just like a leaky cap. You need to make sure you take a propper measurement of all input and all output collectively! Anything less is inconclusive.
~Dingus Mungus
Reposted @ Humbugger
You're preaching to the chior here...
I'm just saying slow your roll. Work on some of this stuff first, explain some stuff, tell people about your ideas... Then when a joker pops up tear him up once or twice and wait. This is giving them the proverbial noose rope, then when they pull a mahess or VANDUGEGS, you'd be helping out not distracting. Chas is in the phase where we're watching and waiting, with site engineers attempting to gain access to measure the claims. Spamming 3 pages with "it doesn't work" or "it can't work" before we get these numbers is silly and makes us all look bad... We do have a procedure that we follow for this, but you're just ranting the most obvious points in the mean time.
~Dingus Mungus
Yes, I noticed your enlightened posts there and even mentioned in my own tirade about proper energy measurement that you were the only voice of reason I had heard in regard to that subject.
I didn't want to reply by quoting huge posts again, but you said "The trick is knowing we only know what we've actually experimented with the rest is assumed in most cases."
I agree in the sense of affirmation of new working systems or concepts. I heartily disagree when it comes to rejecting re-hashed thinly-veiled bogus ideas that have been tried and shown not to work and previously rejected. It seems a huge portion of the replication efforts I read about here fall into that category.
We don't need to experiment to know that a huge number of the machines posed on this site will never work because we can recognize that they are no different in principal or practice from systems that have been built, tested and proven worthless and discarded, often for hundreds of years. I'm sure this is no news to you.
The thing is, there are a huge number of participants who are not as good as we are at seeing the old dead concept in the new sheeps clothing. There are many who just have no idea what they are doing at all, and few who admit it. Most folks here, it seems, don't boil these proposals down and think about the principals and make analogies and mentally discover "Hey, that's essentially the same as that other thing that failed miserably".
Oh, well...the world is full of people spending their lives justifying their favorite habitual delusions, be it in religion, politics, economics, love or "energy hobbies".
I wanted to say science there, but just couldn't. Science is in good part the art of disproving delusions.
I appreciate your good advice and I'll let you know if I decide to start building anything with manic enthusiasm. Don't hold your breath, though. I'm kind of enjoying being "a skeptical goon".
Well I'll just have to warn you, only those with research and experiments are taken seriously here. Delusional or not... Joe Newman is a great example; hes obviously a little delusional, but his technology shows promise none the less. So we will listen to him not to hear about how god gave him the technology, but about how it works so we can experiment with the technology.
Your services as a humbugger will be treated as distraction or mere formality that comes with this kind of research, but your active experimenting in a field of your choice coupled to a keen sense of skepticism will be much more readily embraced.
So in closing, lets lower the useless chatter in the threads. No ones going to stop working on something because you say so. Thats a even sillier delusion to beleive... It's time now to wait for Ash or Mark to come back with some hard numbers, and you better believe I'll be here, with you, throwing a fit if power over time isn't propperly refrenced in the measurements. Hell I offered to purchase the meters for Chas to speed up the process.
~Dingus Mungus
P.S. You gotta have a little more faith in the regular members around here. We're patient not stupid, and we look at everything even if we've seen something similar before.
@Humbugger,
please slow down and have patience !
You asked for a working device , so just visit the Alabama Fire station department,
if you don?t belive in the Griggs machine and take a shower there in the
Grigg?s pump heated water with 150 % efficiency.
Ask the fire department officer about their electricity bills and they will
confirm it that they pay less now to heat their water.
Anyway, please all stay ontopic now here.
I just sent Chas a reminder email now, that he hopefully
will soon let Ashtweth come to his place and take videos
and new measurements.
Until then we should just wait and see or other people
should apply too to visit Chas and take videos of the machine.
Regards, Stefan.
OK fellows,
point taken...I should ease up...not fill others' threads with long tirades all night...ok...ok...ok. I get it. Right or wrong, I should be less rude and space-hoggish about it. I see...newbie error. Please forgive me.
@Stefan: Do you find it at all odd that Griggs is now out of the company and Hydro Dynamics Inc. is only selling very specialized industrial units with no OU claims whatsoever? Do you suppose this is resulting from suppression or is the machine not really all that the first few tests by the OU community cracked it up to be? You would think they would shout from the rooftops if it was the only OU water heater in the world! And sell them into all possible application areas. Can't buy one to heat hot water at home or at the office or Fire Station, for that matter...only specialized industrial plant process heaters. No efficiency numbers even discussed. Makes me wonder...
Humbugger
Don't know if anyone posted this yet, but there seems to be a new video about this motor on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Y8DBXJTt8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Y8DBXJTt8)
This guy is one step closer to the grave, with his invention disappearing
forever.
Ive stumbled into Youtube, and found out about the "New World Order"
Who apparently have been using their cash to gain corruption and more
money and power... since (and before) the very Govt. was established
in Usa.
They control the very TV content, including news. Radio. Police.
Govt. And operate across many countries. Though, it seems they
have a (temporary?) weakness with regards to the internet control...
They wont seize the guy till his work it said to be finished. As then
there is no chance for wasted efforts on a device that does not
really pose a threat.
There is NOBODY that can help this guy get any money out of the thing.
In fact, I doubt that anyone could or would build a working commercial
device... because they are all tied to the NWO in some way.
The only way the guy has any chance, is to give out the plans
Immediately, to a LOT of people. As that may insure a ton
of people can build it before it can be silenced.
This guy, like many, thinks things are just peachy. Please clue him
in on how Stan Myers just passed away. As well as info on the NWO.
He should not trust Anyone... but should release the info
to masses asap.
If somehow it really does work, and if say... 200 people
build the things... maybe theres a small chance that
they could all unite and form an unstoppable, undeniable
press revolution. A day when all machines are revealed
at the same time, in various locations in the world...
and via internet and local coverages. This may lead
to a forced position that the NWO will not be able to
mess with.
Ohh, and Btw, if anyone can make money with an invention,
you can bet that the NWO will still get a cut from the
manufacture, distribution, and taxes.
And the money wont be worth much, when they have created
massive destruction of the world as we know it.
Quote from: zero on August 12, 2007, 04:15:45 PM
This guy is one step closer to the grave, with his invention disappearing
forever.
Ive stumbled into Youtube, and found out about the "New World Order"
Who apparently have been using their cash to gain corruption and more
money and power... since (and before) the very Govt. was established
in Usa.
They control the very TV content, including news. Radio. Police.
Govt. And operate across many countries. Though, it seems they
have a (temporary?) weakness with regards to the internet control...
They wont seize the guy till his work it said to be finished. As then
there is no chance for wasted efforts on a device that does not
really pose a threat.
There is NOBODY that can help this guy get any money out of the thing.
In fact, I doubt that anyone could or would build a working commercial
device... because they are all tied to the NWO in some way.
The only way the guy has any chance, is to give out the plans
Immediately, to a LOT of people. As that may insure a ton
of people can build it before it can be silenced.
This guy, like many, thinks things are just peachy. Please clue him
in on how Stan Myers just passed away. As well as info on the NWO.
He should not trust Anyone... but should release the info
to masses asap.
If somehow it really does work, and if say... 200 people
build the things... maybe theres a small chance that
they could all unite and form an unstoppable, undeniable
press revolution. A day when all machines are revealed
at the same time, in various locations in the world...
and via internet and local coverages. This may lead
to a forced position that the NWO will not be able to
mess with.
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcXLFDuAJNE
FreeEnergy... thats nothing. Nwo has ties to Satanism. They
are intending to cause the 'end'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvgm0RJnHRo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkKbE9qCzQo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89SB59DT34&mode=related&search=
And most recent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OFvkfmJaAk
Time to wake up guys. Spread the news Fast.
Hi
Is someone able to make a copy of the Video?
If you watch the Gravity Wheel,you can see something like a huge red colored hose,dat is stady in unbalanced position.
Perhaps the hose is filled with water and seperatet in sektions.
The video is from bad quality,but if one see the inner komponents working it is
possible to imagine a mechanism that guides hose stedy on the right outside in the ring.
By this way it is all ready open source.
thanks to chase
he will help us to wake up a generation of (non-adikted to energy supply)
free living citicen of the world.It is the chance for our children and there families.
No need for diktatorship. No need for unpayable health supply. No need for people
to die of hunger.
Please chase.
Now give Ashtweth the signal, visit you on your place and take videos
and do new measurements.
It will always be named the Chase Campbell free power Motor.
Make Money with blueprints and CD and so on.
helmut
In addition, I just dug this one up:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Did you know that the Federal Reserve is not controlled by
the Govt anymore?! Its privately owned and designed for
making profit. And... its NEVER been Audited!
Your money has been the Fuel to the NWO's personal
wealth, and disgustiing projects...
The fedral reserve was never controlled by the gov., and fedral income tax is used to pay the interest debt, and is not constitutional, or is there a law that you have to pay it. We live to serve the enemy, we empower the few thru our collective ignorance.
Actually, thats not 100% accurate according to this documentary.
US did at one time have control of a 'central bank'.. but later
thru corruption, the bank was took over by what would be
called 'The Federal Reserve'.
Sure, the name was different, Ill give you that. But there
actually was a system in place before that time, where
we controlled our own funds.
Turns out that throughout history, these Money changers,
have been attaining wealth and power at any cost. It
even goes back to the date of Jesus... where it said
he cast them out of a temple.
Now, Im not a super religious guy. I do not believe/trust
any one thing in any religion. But, I do believe in a higher power..
a Good one. And I do believe there was a Jesus... even
if I do not believe the story that has most likely been
corrupted as well.
I can say, that all this makes perfect logical sense. As
well as the irrefutable and overwhelming proofs.
Its hard to believe that something was never done
to stop this a Long time ago. So very sad...
Not to contribute to this off topic rant, but...
VOTE RON PAUL 2008! Lets take this country back!!!
Ah yes zero i have been saying about nwo, and the free energy ,and how it has to be open sourced, and not stupid patents sometime ago there is no point whatsoever,open sourced,or (if you patent free energy)patents = oil pfft, feed the people with the free energy machines who know they work,that they get there money from selling electric or not even paying bills on electric and may as well open source them rather then stupid patents,i know thats corrupt as well.
Anyways you can go back on topic.
Yes, a patent will never work. Nor will industry. They have both been corrupted
long ago.
Heres a thought... If you put the info out there, and put up a link
to Donate money to the Invention, Im sure the people would
drop tons of cash in as a Thank You.
Make no mistake, people will not donate untill they build
the device and knows it works. But after that, I think you
will get a nice kickback... as well as feel much better
that our world is in better shape because of it.
(and healthier, cause the air is cleaner)
hey guys sorry to barge in
after numerous calculations and synthesys>>> i think i found us a way to get real free energy
>> stay tuned
i will be needing as much feedback as possible from you
lets do it together
i guess that this is the purpose of this forum anyway
i stand on grounds that >> many of our predecessors have opened ways but they all got stuck in their single lined research thus were unable to see the bigger picture
please feel free to join in
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3029.new.html#new
any contextual input will be welcomed
thanks in advance
Getting more details now as far as i know he will still let us measure his set up more details as i find them out
latest email to me
First build a flywheel that will produce at least twice as much energy as you need to drive your alternator when finished you should have trouble seeing it moving as it runs in its own space, After a few trial runs i built one by having a h-t steel shaft keeyed each end before a flange or a disc was slipped along to the center and welded the flange was then drilled and tapped to take studs, using a router i cut a circle 600mm in diameter out of custom board with a hole in the center to take the shaft this was attached to the flange using studs with washers and lock nuts the second circle had a hole in the center large enough to fit over the flange this was fitted from the other end and screwed to the first wheel by doing this i could try diffrent speeds and drives until i was satisfied i had a combination that would work with what i had which was a .075 hp single phase electric motor and a 3.5 kva alternator,The flywheel ended up being 72mm thick and 590mm in diametor i then fitted a steel band around my wheel this added more power my theory being if you create centrifugal force you can drive anything as long as the wheel keeps spinning I ended up with an alternator fitted with a 4.5inch pulley driven by a 9inch pulley the alternator speed was 3146rpm at that speed it was easy to run electrical applicances for a period now to the most important part to keep the wheel spinning i wanted to build a power grid which had a single power supply to a switch that worked on a roating system to this i would have 6 identical electric motors connected they would all drive to a comon shaft in the center imagn a clock with your motors situated at 1-3-5-7-9-11 , The switch would direct power to one motor at a time with a overlap that provided power to the second before the first was switched off this means one motor is working while the others are cooling down on this drive shaft i would have a smaller flywheel to compensate the power required to drive 6 sets of belts as the motors are like the alternator they require very little power to spin Drive this shaft at approx half the speed of your motors from this shaft double your speed to your main flywheel then using pulleys as large as possible drive your alternator All you need then is a simple device that prevents your alternator producing more power then your system is capable of maintaining. I tried very hard to create enough interest in my invention to be able to fund the end product but i feel i am wasting my time so hopefully one of you good people will have more luck then me ,as for testing one of my original machines it would be a waste of time as no mater who tested it it would not satisify everybody thanks for your interest and good luck,Chas PS I would like this passed on to as many as possible.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2007, 12:50:08 AM
Getting more details now as far as i know he will still let us measure his set up more details as i find them out
latest email to me
First build a flywheel that will produce at least twice as much energy as you need to drive your alternator when finished you should have trouble seeing it moving as it runs in its own space, After a few trial runs i built one by having a h-t steel shaft keeyed each end before a flange or a disc was slipped along to the center and welded the flange was then drilled and tapped to take studs, using a router i cut a circle 600mm in diameter out of custom board with a hole in the center to take the shaft this was attached to the flange using studs with washers and lock nuts the second circle had a hole in the center large enough to fit over the flange this was fitted from the other end and screwed to the first wheel by doing this i could try diffrent speeds and drives until i was satisfied i had a combination that would work with what i had which was a .075 hp single phase electric motor and a 3.5 kva alternator,The flywheel ended up being 72mm thick and 590mm in diametor i then fitted a steel band around my wheel this added more power my theory being if you create centrifugal force you can drive anything as long as the wheel keeps spinning I ended up with an alternator fitted with a 4.5inch pulley driven by a 9inch pulley the alternator speed was 3146rpm at that speed it was easy to run electrical applicances for a period now to the most important part to keep the wheel spinning i wanted to build a power grid which had a single power supply to a switch that worked on a roating system to this i would have 6 identical electric motors connected they would all drive to a comon shaft in the center imagn a clock with your motors situated at 1-3-5-7-9-11 , The switch would direct power to one motor at a time with a overlap that provided power to the second before the first was switched off this means one motor is working while the others are cooling down on this drive shaft i would have a smaller flywheel to compensate the power required to drive 6 sets of belts as the motors are like the alternator they require very little power to spin Drive this shaft at approx half the speed of your motors from this shaft double your speed to your main flywheel then using pulleys as large as possible drive your alternator All you need then is a simple device that prevents your alternator producing more power then your system is capable of maintaining. I tried very hard to create enough interest in my invention to be able to fund the end product but i feel i am wasting my time so hopefully one of you good people will have more luck then me ,as for testing one of my original machines it would be a waste of time as no mater who tested it it would not satisify everybody thanks for your interest and good luck,Chas PS I would like this passed on to as many as possible.
sounds good, any drawings/blueprint of how all this works?
;D ;)
>Getting more details now as far as i know he will still let us measure his set up more details as i find them out
:D
Unless I'm missing something, this sounds like kinetic storage....
Rich
aaha..... but wait, there's more!
If you order in the next 10 minutes you'll not only recieve one, but two "Chas Campbell free power motors" ........(instructions & battery's sold separately) !!
;D
Okay, I just got an email from Chas confirming,
that a date has been set at the 1st weekend of September with Ash.
Then Ash will report over here.
Many thanks to Chas and Ash to bring this forward.
Regards, Stefan.
you beat me sorry i get out of bed at 9 am ;D
yeah just sent you a mail man to confirm, also we will have a full write up on our on line uni, by some one who can do the most easy to follow practical plans Patrick Kelly.
http://www.panaceauniversity.org
This date is confirmed ill be there with camera on Sep 1st! The whole world community is going to owe Chas a lifetime of thanks and gratitude, i will also be arranging a funding charity drive for him for those who can say thanks, to look after him in ANY way.
He wishes to at least get some renumeration for his Grand kids, Also the Grant foundations will want to talk to him about his advanced system (he deserves it for this gift to the world), but the proof is here, he always said what he was going to do and he has done it!
here comes History, i would sell your OIL shares ;)
Sounds great, can't hardly wait.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2007, 08:18:50 PM
you beat me sorry i get out of bed at 9 am ;D
yeah just sent you a mail man to confirm, also we will have a full write up on our on line uni, by some one who can do the most easy to follow practical plans Patrick Kelly.
http://www.panaceauniversity.org
This date is confirmed ill be there with camera on Sep 1st! The whole world community is going to owe Chas a lifetime of thanks and gratitude, i will also be arranging a funding charity drive for him for those who can say thanks, to look after him in ANY way.
He wishes to at least get some renumeration for his Grand kids, Also the Grant foundations will want to talk to him about his advanced system (he deserves it for this gift to the world), but the proof is here, he always said what he was going to do and he has done it!
here comes History, i would sell your OIL shares ;)
Hi Ash...
Can you give us any details about how the testing (if any) will be done? It sounds like Charles is a really neat old guy with a heart of gold and who deserves a lot of respect and our kindness for his long hard efforts. I can see how it would be pretty tough to be a hard-nosed scientist evaluating without bias under the circumstances.
Before I "sell my oil shares", however, I think it would be prudent to not only have a showing and more video of the machine but to really make sure it does something other than storing a lot of slowly-accumulated kinetic energy. There are several quite successful commercial flywheel-based backup/stabilization power systems on the market already; none claim any overall energy gain nor does any provide such.
To indicate any actual energy gain, you understand, one would have to accurately measure total watthours input vs total watthours output; from a dead stopped condition to full runup and back to a fully run down stopped flywheel. It would not suffice to neglect the energy required to get the flywheel up to speed, obviously.
That is the quickest, most error-proof skeptic-proof approach, especially if the test is repeated with the calibrated watt-hour meters swapped in position from input to output. If only instantaneous power in watts, rather than accumulated energy in watthours or wattseconds, can be measured, then an accurate test will take much longer and it gets much trickier and far more prone to error.
If a clear excess of total output energy can be honestly shown, using reasonably accurate calibrated instruments and accounting for all the input energy, then I'll be pleased to donate some funds to the Charles Campbell fund you mentioned. Have a good visit and give the old guy a high-five from the Humbugger regardless of the outcome of any scientific testing. Thanks!
Humbugger
I just have to put my two cents in. I agree with Hum' that by simply putting a watt meter in front of the machine and one at the output and letting it start up, run for a few hours maybe, and then turn off and compare the readings. Then if it seams to be real try switching the two meters' positions and doing it again. I would think you could also easily install a simple three way power switch that would two on and one off position. So position would be:
1)On - Wall outlet power
2)On - Power from the other end of the generator feeding back.
3)OFF
Then by simply turning it to position 1 until its up to speed and then to position 2 which would loop the power back around and hopefully keep it running. Then you could put a watt meter in line after the generator/alternator which you can watch and see if the watts ramp up or down. Theoretically with no regulators and "if it worked" the machine would feedback into itself and cause a rapid increase in speed. Probably blowing up in just a few seconds after switching. That would be fu... interesting!
Tim
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2007, 08:18:50 PM
you beat me sorry i get out of bed at 9 am ;D
yeah just sent you a mail man to confirm, also we will have a full write up on our on line uni, by some one who can do the most easy to follow practical plans Patrick Kelly.
http://www.panaceauniversity.org
This date is confirmed ill be there with camera on Sep 1st! The whole world community is going to owe Chas a lifetime of thanks and gratitude, i will also be arranging a funding charity drive for him for those who can say thanks, to look after him in ANY way.
He wishes to at least get some renumeration for his Grand kids, Also the Grant foundations will want to talk to him about his advanced system (he deserves it for this gift to the world), but the proof is here, he always said what he was going to do and he has done it!
here comes History, i would sell your OIL shares ;)
Hi Ashtweth
Perhaps you can find a Network Line there to establish a online Connection via ICQ
helmut
Hi all, Earl has already suggested the DC in and DC measurements out method , its posted early in the thread so do some more reading ;D
We have already completed a DC box to test this, plus we will have another qualified electrician with some other instrumentation there on the day. Dont worry loads and DC measurements will bed explored, not simple numbers on a watt meter.
Humbugger thats a good point, perhaps we will get enough on the day for you to reproduce and to apply this method. i know once we do we will be applying your method and reporting back for the board.
@helmut Im Told ICQ is a way to spy and hack your system so i avoid it
Here are full details for the late comers
Put the following in series:
FWBR -> digital ampmeter -> analog ampmeter -> lightbulb(s)
In parallel to the lamp(s)
one digital voltmeter
one analog voltmeter
At the output of the FWBR a big electrolytic capacitor (with voltage
breakdown reserve)
to smooth out ripple and make DC.
At the inverter input do the same thing using both analog and digital
meters simultaneously.
You can use an ampmeter at the battery, but measure voltage right at the
inverter,
otherwise the wires between battery and inverter could (WILL !) drop the
voltage.
what we need is the basic design:
Gearing Details:
1. Input power from a 750 watt motor (no special switching?)
2. Drive motor is geared to Disc 1 with a ratio of .....
3. Disc 1 is geared to Disc 2 with a ratio of ......
4. Disc 2 is geared to Disc 3 with a ratio of ......
5. Disc 3 ..... etc. until the drive to the generator is reached:
N. Disk x is geared to the generator shaft with a ratio of .....
Disc Details:
Disc 1: Diameter in inches, thickness in inches, weight, dia. of attached pulley.
Disc 2: Ditto.
Disc 3: Ditto.
Other Details:
If there is any special switching, or assembly provisos, or whatever. On the surface, just adding a flywheel on its own should not give any kind of power gain, so what exactly is he doing to get the COP>1 effect that he claims
Sounds adequate except your last statement scares me: "On the surface, just adding a flywheel on its own should not give any kind of power gain, so what exactly is he doing to get the COP>1 effect that he claims?"
Power x Time = Energy Watts x Seconds = Joules
Any system element that stores energy, be it a flywheel, capacitor, spring, battery, inductor or whatever can easily and inherently exhibit "power gain". Charge up a capacitor or battery with a trickle charge of 1W and then short it out with a copper bar if you don't understand. Thousands of watts output, one watt input. When measuring for energy performance, measuring power is not conclusive unless time is fully acounted for. I wrote a long post on this in this thread.
If you just cannot or will not measure total watthours in and out while taking the total machine from a dead stop to full speed full load and then back to a dead stop,
and you insist on only measuring instantaneous power in and out after the machine is already up to speed
and the machine contains a large energy-store, then you must measure the power using only real (purely resistive...no reactive imaginary power loads) and constant steady (no measuring momentary or short peaks) loads
and you must extend the time of steady-state measurement for a period much longer than that period which represents the energy stored in the flywheel and all other kinetic and electrical storage devices in the system. Long sentence...sorry.
The measurements must be taken at steady state conditions if only power is to be measured, in other words. To find out when a steady state is achieved, get the machine up to speed, add loads to whatever output level you desire and let the machine settle back to steady speed before measuring. During true steady state conditions, the input and load power and flywheel speed will be stable and unchanging.
The input voltage and the load must remain fixed and steady and the system running speed cannot be increasing or decreasing during the measurement period which must be longer than the time constant of all the energy stores combined.
The idea is you must either measure total input and output energy though at least one full state-cycle or you can measure instantaneous real power but only while the system is absolutely stabilized at equilibrium. If you measure power while the overall system is either accumulating energy or releasing stored energy, or after the load or the input voltage is varied, or when the flywheel speed is changing, your numbers will be wrong!
Anything short of taking one of those two proven approaches and you have demonstrated and proven absolutely nothing. The instantaneous power method is very much more rigorous, tedious and difficult to do, (adding all those steady-state equilibrium requirements and the perceived need to use an inverter, battery, output rectifier and filter capacitor to avoid power factor, phase shift and sine distortion errors) than using the integrated energy product method with genuine wide bandwidth AC multiplying-integrating watthour meters.
Adding all those extra requirements and external equipment adds many opportunities for accidental error or confusion, not to mention outright fraud and self-delusion. Trying to compensate the input measurement for the losses of the input inverter or the output bridge rectifier and figuring a factor for the remaining capacitor ripple at the output, (which will be quite large at any power level near the 3500W being claimed unless it is a truly gigantic and very expensive capacitor).
In my not-all-that-humble opinion, the true multiplying watthour meters method is far, far cheaper, easier, faster and more accurate. Doing useful metrology on power trains, whether electronic or mechanical, is not as simple and foolproof as most people suppose.
I will not elaborate further unless anyone has challenges or questions about my statements. Then I will be pleased to prove and/or explain my position further.
Humbugger
My view: Thy flywheel cannot have a function other than storage and wire back some energy. If it is overunity, than the system should NOT be connected to conventional net. it should run autarc. then NO measurement is needed to see if its Overunity. And simple measurements to see how much power out could be gained until the wheel stops under higher and higher loads. Everything else is a unfinished concept or circus.
@Humbugger
I would have to agree...
I've posted something stating the same several times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel#Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage
It's not like we're making this up...
~Dingus Mungus
Thanks for accuracy suggestions guys,
Okay, Well how about this: total power in [start up and running] vrs total power out in load- That means if i get your watt meters, and measure, EXACTLY in run time, what Chas used to 'store' and or create his gravity 'SINK' and what out put is being out putted into the resistive the load.
IE. measure what it took the inverter and battery to create the centrifugal force [In Watts/Time] vrs what the total power in the system is out putting in the load. [By run time]
Then by your analogy, it should be unity...I bet it will be over unity
So Gravity is not putting in the excess energy, and we are only storing energy in the fly wheel, meaning his 800 watt motor used all the energy in run time to store the energy in the fly wheel and Chas is out puts this in his 3500 watt loads.
Okay , now i know how you guys think, this is not with out its usefulness to silence skeptics upon this investigation/confirmation, plus this is also useful to explain to people how these system work.
Plus this is also useful to make you scratch your heads ;D
Guys lets try and encourage Chas, he reads these forums, and deserves our courtesy and respect for allowing us to get closer and to help him help all of us.
I have just recently spoken to him on the phone and he was a little discouraged by some comments in the forum, lets try and give him the confirmation that we are really only trying to help ;)
regards
ashtweth
Hi Ash,
if you let the output load of 3500 Watts run for
more than 15 minutes and the input power is
no more than 800 Watts all the time with his setup you
can be sure that you have overunity.
For better calculation afterwards try to get the weights
of all the single wheels and their RPM.
There can not be so much storage in these relatively small
flywheels..
Also they do not rotate so fast, so after a few minutes of time
all their stored energy has be used up and if after 15 minutes
the device can still outputs 3500 Watts with only 800 Watts of
input we really have "free power".
Looking forward to your tests and many thanks again
to Chas to make this possible.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
Thanks man, will do , and thanks for reminding me, you know it sort of reminds me of the RV , where, after they create a resonance condition, they clip the peak of the sine waves, like an energy 'swing' and you only tap the 'peaks' and do not destroy the momentum.
This is also how Chas described it to me, after he creates center fugal force his system maintains the balance, and only a 'tiny' bit of input is needed to keep the action going.
Yes, maybe it has to do with "tapping inertia" !
What is interesting is the change of
acceleration of a mass is
described mathematically by a rocking event ( in German language:
"Ruck")
But next then what is the change of a "Ruck" ?
This is never told in university mechanical classes...
Can a "Ruck" or the change of a "Ruck" tap inertia ?
Stefan Exactly, what happens when you put a child on a 'swing' and she swings very high and you only tap her with little energy to keep the momentum going.
But how do you extract the energy from the swing so the 'inertia' stays the same?
Perhaps Chas has to a degree done this.
In the RV resonance 'swing' the peak sine waves 'tap' is the extracted OU, well thats how Daivd Kou keeps his battery charged he cant explain it by any other conventional means,its a little more elaborate with half waves and ful waves AC theory etc, but thats the 'gist' of it. Im not sure if Chas has done the inertia process, your 15 mins test will clear that up.
Hiya Ash,
Just let Chas know that even if his machine is found not to be over unity, his altruistic attitude is what we all hold in common. I thought I had o/u several times, but my understanding had to change to accept the out come.
It'll only take one good idea to make the world a new place!
Rich
Great answer Rich :), and it does Take Altruism to disclose FE. With out OPEN sourced we will never progress, i feel peoples consciousness will alter with this disclosure, de centralization will make us better human beings.
Chas deep down i think knows this, and cares.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 27, 2007, 11:03:02 PM
Great answer Rich :), and it does Take Altruism to disclose FE. With out OPEN sourced we will never progress, i feel peoples consciousness will alter with this disclosure, de centralization will make us better human beings.
Chas deep down i think knows this, and cares.
I agree that Charles has that brave and persistent pioneer attitude we can all use more of. I also agree that his motives and efforts seem to have been selfless and quite extraordinary for many years!
If I have said anything in my posts that was perceived as discouraging to Charles, I sincerely apologize. My only agenda is to help achieve quality energy measurements.
I'm not convinced that everyone is on the same page quite yet regarding all the details of good testing approaches, but I think the problems are mostly in the terminology.
I agree with Stefan that 15 minutes continuous at any load greater than a couple of KW (real resistive) ought to be plenty of time to settle the system into steady-state running so that instantaneous power measurements would suffice and avoid any error due to flywheel-storage effects. That "steady-state" approach was one of the two I described.
The other approach requires the watthour meters and simply counts all the energy going in vs all that going out during the entire duration of the runup, plus any arbitrary stable-running period you choose and the complete spin-down.
Either approach requires using essentially resistive loads on the system output (which ensures only real forward power) and measuring only the real power to the system input from the AC grid (if used).
Output rectification and filtering is not needed given wideband true rms metering and resisive loads. Power factor into a pure resistance is, by definition, unity; phase shift between voltage and current is, by definition, zero. True rms metering will take care of any amplitude distortions.
Meters used must, of course, have enough bandwidth to accommodate the frequency of the output power.
This requirement could be problematic in regard to using low cost watthour meters if the frequency is outside the 45-70Hz range.Input battery and inverter are not needed if the input power measuring method can measure only real power and ignore reactive power. Adding reactive power here will falsely lower the COP calculated, as it would make the input appear falsely larger.
Because each of these external elements adds inefficiencies, I'd try to avoid them, personally. I would guess that Charles would be less comfortable also, seeing several energy-stealing power conditioning devices tacked into the power train.
Of course, if 3500/800 output to input ratios or anything close to that can be achieved in the steady state, those external losses would be easily negligible. But if the result is only a bit more than unity, or a bit less, it might be hard to sort out all the various external losses.
Okay...I've said all I can say except thanks for listening and giving consideration and thought to my suggestions. I hope they make sense to you all; they do to me.
Also, thanks to all, especially to Charles and Ashtweth, for facilitating these measurement efforts! I look forward to seeing the results on video and in Ashtweth's report to the forum.
Humbugger
I have to agree with Humbugger re measurements having been involved many times in measuring projects.
Being a member of the NEC (New Energy Congress) I would like to attend the day you intend to validate and test the device. I would be non intrusive and be an independent observer. I live only a couple of hours away from Brisbane and will be in the country in September. I have to go to NZ tommorrow for a couple of days re a magnetic motor , but will be back until mid September. I would be happy to sign a Non disclosure and you can look up my references on the NEC website.
I admire Chas Campbells spirit, motives and intentions and he should be applauded. However we must also take care that we do get accurate measurements and methodology that would put the device beyond doubt.
I have delt with many inventors for many years, however I am sad to report that they have often misled themselves in reading or seeing data selectively. I am not suggesting this applies here, but we must be certain of the outcomes.
By default I have become a skeptic by often revealing flawed methodologies in test data. This does not diminish my belief that some day a break through will come.
I wish all who are involved in the project every success and hope you will consider my offer of attending on behalf of the NEC
Kind Regards
Mark
After reading all the comments on the tread, it?s amazes me to see ?how smart the energy research people are. (Hum- I enjoy reading your comments. You are like a OU detective! You may get hired for that. Not by me thou LOL.
Good work Chas! You are an inspiring man, your work shall continue to progress and can?t be stop, just so you know.
Like previously has said your discovery may just be ?kinetic storage system?
It may very well look that way for us from outside.
But as a ou research scientist: We must write down the results we find and look into how we can further improve the technology.
And not to write down or spend time with those things that we have not found yet! To do so we throw the baby out with the bath water.
The technological breakthrough that we are achieved in every field today, It could have killed us 200 years a go if we made public announcement about ?inventions that are going to come next 200 years. As we all know that it?s true. Then surely we say the same today that, we are undreamed of the innovations yet to come just in 10 years. You see the point here.
Just like Chas, we need pioneers and way showers from every race and age.
Just imagine if had few more pioneers like Chas in their experienced and mature years to help us? As Chinese has said: Man is not mature before the age 70. So much for that, lots of mature man barely can walk after the age 70.
Hey you guys remember: It was more then a decade a go that China hired 800 retired German engineers to improve their economy, they weren?t kidding. They know the wisdom of their ancestors.
Ash?s comments: This is also how Chas described it to me, after he creates center fugal force his system maintains the balance, and only a 'tiny' bit of input is needed to keep the action going.
This could be the Chas?s invention breakthrough, but can?t we further improve this? Oh sure we can!
But, this will take all of our support thou. Impossible, takes just a little longer.
As from me, how about this:
Take Chas?s invention and install a prime mover using a 7.5 HP RV motor? As we all know 7.5 HP RV Motor uses only 65 to 70 Watts of input power (in a idle mode)
Hey Chas, I hope you get to hear this idea and apply on your invention.
Mem>>
@Hum
If Chas's wheel machine ran in a closed box, and you measured the heat generated and added that to the output, could this count also in the final results?
I have always been curious about the heat.
I think it was on peswiki or something that I saw a new device chip waffer or something that made electricity from heat. What if the drive motor and generator were covered with these also. Take some of that energy and return it to source.
Or maybe I'm just trying to draw water from a rock.
Sometimes in my 100s of tests and dodads, OU would be so close and the motors would be so hot. Hello.......
Does anyone have the plans for Chas's machine so we can consider replicating it. I imagine that at a certain point in the wheel exchanges there is a partial void that occurs between the push of the movite and swirl of the captive sides. Both the larger wheels are acting as centrifugal and and the smaller pulley wheels are acting as centripital drag reducers. The drag from the generator is so far away from this drive motor moving all that mass with rotational gain, central void, and drag curtain. This is just totally smart, smart, smart. A motion coil. Two poles with a void.
I want one! I'm sure after a first replication, you could then sell the plans all over. Even make and sell unassembled or assembled units. Call Ikea. lol Geez wooden wheels, who would have thought.
Quote from: wattsup on August 28, 2007, 08:15:35 PM
@Hum
Does anyone have the plans for Chas's machine so we can consider replicating it.
If you go back to past threts you'll see what Ash was saying (First week of Sep. he is going to see him and documant he's invention and yes Chas want's people to dublicate he's invention.
Watts here is those modules: http://www.sitechina.com/thermoelectric/Pspec.html
Chas said:
I tried very hard to create enough interest in my invention to be able to fund the end product but i feel i am wasting my time so hopefully one of you good people will have more luck then me ,as for testing one of my original machines it would be a waste of time as no mater who tested it it would not satisfy everybody thanks for your interest and good luck,Chas
PS I would like this passed on to as many as possible.More here http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Chas_Campbell_Generator
Mem
G'day ashtweth and all,
The child on a swing phenomenon is caused by a shift of the centre of gravity on the pendulum (swing) in phase with its natural frequency of oscillations. One way of tapping this is proposed in the Milkovic device though not exactly like you imagine.
Have a look at my paper on Harnessing Secondary Oscillations on http://www.keelytech.com/news.html where this is discussed.
It might give you some ideas.
Hans von Lieven
You guys RAWK.
@mark, i think the best thing to do ATM, as Chas doesn't want too many people there, is to get a replication going and submit it for the NEC verification, get some one we trust, not an OIL man, Chas is an old man and we should take away any efforts needed on his behalf.
Will mention to Chas as well, as Earl asked me too, bottom line tho we will get what Chas has offered to us when there and go from there. ;)
@Hans
Mate that is EXACTLY what we need to add to the web page and explanation /video on the day to present to the mainstream, i am writing the video script now.
I knew all you guys working together like Stefan, Mem, Hum and all would be un stoppable , thats why My non profit org is attempting to get you guys a HOME, ( a resourced backed research and development center)
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ResearchandDevelopment.htm
Chas's GIFT may get you all that BTW, no where else are there engineers like you guys working on our children's future.
YOU Guys like it or not are humanities only hope, and are above the rest.
We need to consolidate the world open sourced engineers, and change our course.
@Mem
> Take Chas?s invention and install a prime mover using a 7.5 HP RV motor? As we all know 7.5 HP RV Motor uses only 65 to 70 Watts of input power (in a idle mode)
We have this and many RV's available waiting to show Chas, the RV drive motor is the most efficient motor, plus i feel Freq driving it will stop Chas's system from De tuning!
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=9089608413203959523
Quote from: wattsup on August 28, 2007, 08:15:35 PM
@Hum
If Chas's wheel machine ran in a closed box, and you measured the heat generated and added that to the output, could this count also in the final results?
I have always been curious about the heat.
I think it was on peswiki or something that I saw a new device chip waffer or something that made electricity from heat. What if the drive motor and generator were covered with these also. Take some of that energy and return it to source.
Or maybe I'm just trying to draw water from a rock.
Well, if you put any stock in classic thermodynamic laws, every machine is exactly 100% efficient total-energy-wise. That would count, heat, sound, vibration, light and all other forms of energy output compared to total energy input. If the law of energy conservation is shown to be invalid, I guess anything goes!
Most machines are designed for a certain purpose and efficiency is then measured in that context. For instance, we would be very thrilled if jet engines were developed which made no sound and spewed no heat. Efficiency in terms of fuel vs thrust would be improved unless some other form of energy output that was not adding to the purpose of thrust were to increase, according to thermodynamics.
Typical design goals for most machines involve converting energy from a single form to another single form. So efficiency is usually expressed in those terms only. Energy outputs not in the desired form are called "losses", though no energy is actually lost.
For OU research purposes, in an effort to prove OU operation, it would be fair to include every form of energy output, although you can see how non-trivial it is just to get accurate electrical metrics. Imagine the task of accurately measuring the output noise, vibration, heat, light, e/m radiation, etc. The vast majority of science monies spent have to do directly with constructing experiments which allow the theoretical proposals to be tested and results measured accurately. That's the name of the game in science.
Classic "Peltier plates" and some similar newer solid state approaches to heat-to-electricity conversion do certainly exist, although the best conversion efficiencies reported seem to be below thirty percent, as I recall. And that number is for rather high temperature differences, like 400C. For modest temp diffs of 20-30C as found in electrical equipment, I think 10-15 percent would be doing well.
Humbugger
@Mem
Thanks for the link. I sent them an e-mail.
I also looked on Peswiki and found the one I was talking about.
http://www.eneco.com/app_rwh.html
Check what they are saying.
@Hum
Thanks for your input as usual. So I guess if OU is to be properly measured, then every type of energy produced can be taken into account and by doing so, this brings devices more closer to OU. Then the question is how to measure such energy dissipations and place them in a total wattage equivalent. That will be the duzzy.
How about measuring the OU by your money needed for the power bill ;D ;D ;D
Has anyone else here figured out how it works yet? I saw the video, then looked at the still, and it took me ten seconds to figure it out.
It's quite ingenious in it's simplicity.
@GraviTar
So far there have been number of speculations regarding how this might work.
If you think you have figured out how it works: please, share your ideas with us so we can start on replication faster.
Beautiful words ashtweth,
I only hope we can live up to them.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: GraViTaR on August 29, 2007, 03:04:44 AM
Has anyone else here figured out how it works yet? I saw the video, then looked at the still, and it took me ten seconds to figure it out.
It's quite ingenious in it's simplicity.
Yes, Gravitar, tell us how it works! Please!
Humbugger
G'day all,
I am with humbugger on this one, PLEEEEEEEAAAASSSSEEE gravitar tell us how to screw over-unity out of a series of flywheels, and while you are at it tell us how generations of flywheel users and designers have missed such an important phenomenon.
Hans von Lieven
Forget the brightly painted flywheels, pulleys, generator and electric motor. They are a separate unit from the big gravity wheel. That is quite apparent in this YouTube video, the TV news report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QD2Whs_LxA
The gravity wheel is nowhere to be seen; yet the unit is running.
At 00:15 of the video, you see only the second wheel turning. This is the wheel that is connected to the electric motor with a belt and pulley mounted to a shaft behind it. Obviously, the electric motor is plugged into a standard, household electric source, since there is nothing else turning, nor anything else to indicate that it is being powered, otherwise.
At 00:20, all three wheels are turning, quite rapidly. The blue wheel, or the ?first? wheel, is turning counter-clockwise, while the second and third wheels are turning clockwise. The third wheel is connected to the second wheel via a belt and pulleys, so it is turning in the same direction as the second wheel, which we know is the drive wheel. The blue wheel has a smaller wheel on a shaft behind it, which is spinning via direct contact with the front pulley on the drive wheel, so it is turning in the opposite direction just as two gears would.
This is all for show, for the news cameras. It is doing nothing. It is an electric motor plugged into the wall, connected to some pulleys and wheels, and we can only assume that it is turning the generator and powering the saw and drill they show because we don?t actually see any of these devices and/or their connections.
Now let?s examine the second YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Y8DBXJTt8
Obviously, we now have the giant ?gravity wheel? here, but more importantly, the first wheel, the ?blue? wheel, is now behind the second wheel. This is just further indication that the first video was just for show.
The second and third wheels are still in their original configuration. All three wheels are turning, as is the gravity wheel, yet they are turning much more slowly than they were in the first video. But upon closer examination, we see that all the small wheels are slightly different. Even some of the pulleys are different; leading one to conclude that this entire setup is a completely different set of wheels.
Now let?s get to the meat and potatoes of this whole thing: The ?gravity? wheel. This has three key parts to it: The larger, outer wheel, that looks like a Ferris wheel; the slightly smaller and difficult to see inner wheel, which is actually just a ring, since it has no spokes or hub; and the final part, which I can only speculate on because it cannot be actually seen in the video, the ?roller?.
Apparently, the inner wheel sits atop the roller, which extends into the body of the Ferris wheel. There are spokes on both faces of the Ferris wheel, but the ones facing us are all detached and bent to one side. I assume they are left on the wheel, rather than removed completely, to maintain balance. This leaves a gap on the front face of the Ferris wheel between the spokes and the hub, which allows the roller to extend into the body of the Ferris wheel.
This leaves us the inner wheel. It has no hub or spokes. It is just a ring. It is situated directly inside the Ferris wheel, but it only makes contact in two places. Firstly, it sits atop the roller, at approximately 6:00, actually, just slightly after 6:00; let?s say 6:05. The second place it makes contact is approximately 3:00, on both the outer and inner wheels. That is, the 3:00 area of the inner wheel is contacting the 3:00 area of the outer wheel.
So this is how it works: The inner wheel is sitting atop the roller at 6:05. It wants to ?roll off? of the roller, while at the same time, the roller is going to roll in the opposite direction as the large ring is rolling off of it. However, the outer wheel doesn?t allow the inner wheel to roll off of the roller, but since it is a wheel, on an axle, it turns. Additionally, the weight of the inner wheel on the one side of the outer wheel makes the outer wheel turn, since it is putting the outer wheel out of balance. I liken it to something that?s in orbit around the Earth: perpetually falling in a constant arc.
So there you have it: The Gravity Wheel. No over-unity, just harnessing the Earth?s gravity in a practical, working manner. You think this could be what crop circles have been trying to tell us all these years?
All the other wheels and pulleys are an attempt to optimize and stabilize the turning motion to get usable energy out of it in the form of electricity. I think that the small electric motor is just to make sure it keeps spinning properly when a load is put on the generator.
Gee Gravitar!
You mean if he took away all the motor/generator/pullies/wheels/etc. he'd have a big old gravity wheel that just spins all by itself?
Seems like that would make it all so simple! Like a Bessler wheel, huh?
I bet you're wrong. I think Ashtweth and Charles will explain it all very soon.
Humbugger
i bet it works as claimed! (although i am realy not sure, if it will published open-source) Gravitar, your analysis is as acurate as possible at the moment. i agree.
After much analysis, I've concluded that the Ferris wheel design may not be necessary. Instead, the outer wheel could also be a ring supported by rollers. In fact, this would allow us to place any number of rings within successively larger rings as is practicable. Each of them resting on a much sturdier 6:05 roller and each of them making contact with the next ring at 3:00. The increased mass of all the rings working together would increase the power output. Furthermore, the central ring could now be a solid disc, giving us even more mass.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2Fgravitywheels.jpg&hash=c994098f1c4f666802aa697fa3cc18bb9fd8f07b)
Quote from: GraViTaR on August 29, 2007, 03:04:44 AM
Has anyone else here figured out how it works yet? I saw the video, then looked at the still, and it took me ten seconds to figure it out.
It's quite ingenious in it's simplicity.
Hi Gravitar
See my post from 12.08.07 .....
"""
If you watch the Gravity Wheel,you can see something like a huge red colored hose,dat is stady in unbalanced position.
Perhaps the hose is filled with water and seperatet in sektions.
The video is from bad quality,but if one see the inner komponents working it is
possible to imagine a mechanism that guides hose stedy on the right outside in the ring.
By this way it is all ready open source."""
What do you think about the Hose inside ?
G'day all,
Methinks Gravitar has read too much "Professor" Evert.
Hans von Lieven
Here is an alternative setup:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2Fgravitywheels2.jpg&hash=3e8b007d1356a1d93efb2173d06ace6d74512aa6)
We could use any arrangement we want. Wheels falling into each other and constantly turning from the pull of gravity.
Quote from: GraViTaR on August 30, 2007, 09:25:15 PM
Here is an alternative setup:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2Fgravitywheels2.jpg&hash=3e8b007d1356a1d93efb2173d06ace6d74512aa6)
We could use any arrangement we want. Wheels falling into each other and constantly turning from the pull of gravity.
Gravitar, Gravitar, oh dear Gravitar! Please send us a video!
Humbugger,
please stop your useless comments !
Why don?t you just show user Gravitar, where he might have
done an error in his thinking ?
This is a last warning...!
Quote from: hartiberlin on August 30, 2007, 10:03:34 PM
Humbugger,
please stop your useless comments !
Why don?t you just show user Gravitar, where he might have
done an error in his thinking ?
This is a last warning...!
:(
Only when the large wheels move in position (toward the ground) could any torque be developed. The instant any of the wheels moved its position, the whole thing (all the large wheels) quickly begin to fall down.
As long as the center of each wheel stays in one place (which will not be very long at all), the wheels will just sit there; they will not spin. The force vectors are all linear and push against each other in balance; no torque vectors are developed until the centers of the large wheels begin to shift.
When it falls down, yes, some of the gravitational forces are converted to rotational force and the wheels will tend to roll away a proportional distance on the ground.
That is my plain and simple analysis as to why this idea will not work.
Humbugger
Humbugger
That is an excellent analysis of the faulty gravity wheel conglomeration.
Keep up the fair work.
Peter
I just spoke to chas on the Phone we are confirmed for tomorrow, he also said he has a perpetual wheel to show, which he wants every one to know about , Ill get Patrick Kelly onto it right away to write it up, he may be right , as chas has always said he can make a wheel just spin on its own, but by it self, it cannot be loaded, and is why Chas;s system is designed the way it is, so the stuff GraViTaR describes
may be close to the 'money'.
lets see what Chas tells us tomorrow he is reading this ;D
Quote from: Humbugger on August 30, 2007, 03:24:07 AM
Gee Gravitar!
You mean if he took away all the motor/generator/pullies/wheels/etc. he'd have a big old gravity wheel that just spins all by itself?
Seems like that would make it all so simple! Like a Bessler wheel, huh?
I bet you're wrong. I think Ashtweth and Charles will explain it all very soon.
Humbugger
@Gravitar and Hum
If you see a great car and there is this girl (http://www.cruisemates.com/gallery/galleries/2880/56210.jpg)sitting on the front will you look at the Car or the girl? :o ;D
Chas already told me he put the big ferris wheel there for that reasoning :D
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 31, 2007, 02:14:15 AM
@Gravitar and Hum
If you see a great car and there is this girl (http://www.cruisemates.com/gallery/galleries/2880/56210.jpg)sitting on the front will you look at the Car or the girl? :o ;D
Chas already told me he put the big ferris wheel there for that reasoning :D
If I saw that girl anywhere, I'd run like hell! That's my ex wife! She's dangerous!
;D she may be asking you how to create free power soon, shoe will be on the other foot 8)
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 31, 2007, 02:31:52 AM
;D she may be asking you how to create free power soon, shoe will be on the other foot 8)
In her case, it will certainly be based on the dual resonant pendulum approach!
Humbugger...on the verge of being banned, it seems!
@ Gravitar
You should consider getting a copy of WM2D.
It can simulate devices like that quite easily.
~Dingus Mungus
http://www.design-simulation.com/WM2D/download.php
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 31, 2007, 02:31:52 AM
;D she may be asking you how to create free power soon, shoe will be on the other foot 8)
I guess She is that kind of Girl - noone like to share-and-everyone like to play with-at least one Time-
Interesting topic
good luck to all
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 31, 2007, 02:14:15 AMIf you see a great car and there is this girl (http://www.cruisemates.com/gallery/galleries/2880/56210.jpg)sitting on the front will you look at the Car or the girl? :o ;D
I think she would completely block out the car if she was to sit on front of it, so it would really not matter what I tried to look at, everything I'd see would be gravitational devices.
Just a Idea
Well my home internet connection is down again. Can only use at the office.
@DingusMungus
That software you talked about. Went on the site. They are asking $5000 dollars for a single liscence. Are they dreaming or am I mistaken.
Quote from: helmut on August 31, 2007, 11:05:29 AM
Just a Idea
An EXCELLENT idea!!
That is the same principal as the Chas Campbell Gravity Ferris Wheel: A ring within a wheel to apply weight to one side of the wheel to keep it heavier on one side.
I was debating whether an interlocking, gear-type mechanism would be better than smooth surface to surface contact, such as rubber on steel.
That would work, helmut, and be fairly easy to construct. Where and when did you get that idea?
Quote from: GraViTaR on August 31, 2007, 11:23:33 AM
Quote from: helmut on August 31, 2007, 11:05:29 AM
Just a Idea
An EXCELLENT idea!!
That is the same principal as the Chas Campbell Gravity Ferris Wheel: A ring within a wheel to apply weight to one side of the wheel to keep it heavier on one side.
I was debating whether an interlocking, gear-type mechanism would be better than smooth surface to surface contact, such as rubber on steel.
That would work, helmut, and be fairly easy to construct. Where and when did you get that idea?
Hi Gravitar
This Idea i had by whatching chas Video a vew weeks ago. And draw it on Paper 10 minutes ago.
If it workes,it will make us all happy.
helmut
How's this look?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2Fhelmutwheel.jpg&hash=2bad5fe80cc9dc2c370f40dcc6c9a041587b6037)
Quote from: wattsup on August 31, 2007, 11:18:19 AM
Well my home internet connection is down again. Can only use at the office.
@DingusMungus
That software you talked about. Went on the site. They are asking $5000 dollars for a single liscence. Are they dreaming or am I mistaken.
They're greedy thats all...
PM me for a more extensive details about the program. ;)
~Dingus Mungus
Quote from: GraViTaR on August 31, 2007, 11:46:17 AM
How's this look?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2Fhelmutwheel.jpg&hash=2bad5fe80cc9dc2c370f40dcc6c9a041587b6037)
Hello Gravitar
I see the point. But why not at 7:30 AM
How ever...it makes sence to support the second wheel at the right place.
Thanks
helmut
Hmm,
have a look:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=FR2543226&F=0
Einen auf Aure....
dL
Quote from: lancaIV on August 31, 2007, 07:19:22 PM
Hmm,
have a look:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=FR2543226&F=0
Einen auf Aure....
dL
says "This resource does not exist"
edit - ok it works now :)
Quote from: lancaIV on August 31, 2007, 07:19:22 PM
Hmm,
have a look:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=FR2543226&F=0
Einen auf Aure....
dL
Hi deLanca and ALL,
here is this patent,
but if there is no help from the centrifugal forces,
I guess it will not work, cause simular devices have been built and
did not work.
Will be interesting to see, what Ash will report in a few hours,
how the Chas device really does work...
Anyway, attached this french patent.
Quote from: lancaIV on August 31, 2007, 07:19:22 PM
Hmm,
have a look:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=FR2543226&F=0
Einen auf Aure....
dL
It profits from the imbalance but use push and not pull .
Ein R?hnrad und ein Schaufelrad sind nicht ganz das Selbe.
But it is really impressing ,what you are digging out.
Thanks to LancaIV
helmut
Hi All,
I just talked a few minutes to Ash on his mobile phone,
but the connection was very bad from Australia to Germany,
but what I understood was this:
He just was at Chas?s place and measured the input to the 800 Watts
drive motor
to be about 6 Amps and
the output of the alternator was about 10 amps.
(probably at the same voltage)
But I did not fully understand, how long they did run it this way
and he talked something about pulsing the output or input.
He said, they did run it with a hacksaw as the load and another
load thing I did not understand what it was...
But Ash said, with the RV principle the input power could be
surely decreased to around 50 Watts only...
He also saw the big wheel, which almost completely runs
on itsself, which seems to be a different device and
that it only stopps, cause it was built from some
bad cheap parts, so the mechanims begins somehow to
vibrate and then stops, but Ash said, with better parts
this thing should not stop.
Well, the connection to hios mobile phone was very choppy,
but as soon as he is home, he will write a few reports and
upload videos about what he saw.
Regards, Stefan.
Click here to download the translated(by systran 6) french patent document,
readable-ish.
http://www.mediafire.com/?fojm0sflu1w - translated into english.
Well, so from your explanation Chas' machine does achieve 166% efficiency when putting in 800W. Even without being able to decrease power input that'd sure be groundbreaking.
@ Gravitar
Here ist another Design.
That will not work..............
The Theory behind the Chas Campbell device.
Congratulation to Chas Campbell on the successful demonstration of his device. Thank you to Ash and others in confirming and promoting it. Some may still question the Source of Energy of his device. Some may still try to raise the CoE Roadblock. We can apply the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory to explain the source of energy of the Chas Campbell Device. It used Pulsed Rotation to Lead Out gravitational energy. The efficiency of the device will depend on:
(1) Rotational speed
(2) Number of Pulse Points
(3) Mass of the Flywheel (Cylinder is better)
(4) Radius of the Flywheel or Cylinder
(5) The feedback mechanism (Pulse at the right frequency)
(6) Angle of tilt (Output power decreases if axle tilted from horizontal and becomes zero when vertical.)
Tsing Hua University in China worked with an old Chinese Inventor and had a video taken on January 4, 1996. That invention could magnify Input Electricity 30 times and had been used in a factory environment for over 11 years. The following information may be helpful.
Explanation of the Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier Video
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg46560.html#msg46560
The video edited by Ms. Forever Yuen
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg46108.html#msg46108
Accompanied text from Forever:
I have also uploaded the electrical energy magnifier from TsingHua University.
http://rapidshare.com/files/51563146/tsinghua7846-8069.mpg.html
1. The video was done on 4 January 1996.
2. The electrical input was magnified 30 times.
3. The input energy was A.C. power from the local power company. The power was fed to a starting motor. The starting motor is then connected via a belt arrangement to the energy magnifier.
4. The energy magnifier consisted of three cylinders.(The Chas Campbell Device from Australia used three wheels.)
5.The output energy was used to support the entire factory.
6.No output energy was fed back to input as that mechanism had not been perfected.
Lawrence Tseung
Success of the Chas Campbell Device Leads Out the confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory one more time.
Hi Lawrence,
many thanks for posting this video and all your explanation.
Well, what did happen since 1996 with this invention ?
Why hasn?t it being made more public ?
Unfortunately form this video you can not see any
output versus input measurements, so
we have to believe you that it is the way you claim it.
Is anybody working now still on this principle in China ?
Will there soon be more convincing presentations in China ?
Many thanks for bringing news from the China energy research to
over here.
As China is a very big country and is in need now for very big energy
to continue its modernisation growth
it would be good if your industry would use green energy instead of polluting
fossil fuel energy...
So please try to spread the word in China about free energy and alternative
technology by inviting many Chinese people who can speak English
to come over here.
Many thanks for your great efforts.
Regards, Stefan.
"I just talked a few minutes to Ash on his mobile phone,
but the connection was very bad from Australia to Germany,
but what I understood was this:
He just was at Chas?s place and measured the input to the 800 Watts
drive motor
to be about 6 Amps and
the output of the alternator was about 10 amps.
(probably at the same voltage)
But I did not fully understand, how long they did run it this way
and he talked something about pulsing the output or input.
He said, they did run it with a hacksaw as the load and another
load thing I did not understand what it was..."
So far, unless I have missed something, this is the only report about any test results on the Charles Campbell motor. It is a second-hand report taken over a garbled cell phone. The only thing apparent from this report is that all the discussion and plans regarding proper measurement technique were just tossed out. I am waiting for some clarification of the methods and measurement results before reaching any conclusions one way or the other, but the report here is not at all promising in that regard.
It seems, however, to others, this preliminary report from Stefan, complete with at least one huge and well-noted assumption "(probably at the same voltage)" and including no information regarding the real power output or the resistive/reactive qualities of the loads used or the duration of the tests or anything else having to do with the actual energy efficiency, this report alone is considered sufficient to draw the most certain and optimistic and earth-shattering conclusions!
"Congratulation to Chas Campbell on the successful demonstration of his device. Thank you to Ash and others in confirming and promoting it." L. Tseung
"Success of the Chas Campbell Device Leads Out the confirmation of the Lee-Tseung Theory one more time." L. Tseung
"Well, so from your explanation Chas' machine does achieve 166% efficiency when putting in 800W." Iosh
And finally...from Mr. Tseung again...from his last post in his own thread...
"Chas Campbell Leads Out the first conclusive OU demonstration supported by the overunity forum members."
All I am asking for here is that test results and measurements be gathered and analyzed using reasonable levels of scientific technique before any startling conclusions are drawn. So far, the reported data and speculation in no way justify any of these conclusions. Is that not clear to all? Are there any truly scientific researchers here?
It is getting very hard for me to believe that there is a genuine interest in doing any real science; in finding out what really works and what doesn't. It seems more and more that any untested or clearly mis-tested OU assertion whatsoever is automatically believed and then regurgitated as fact for the purpose of "promoting free energy".
I'm all for a good free energy invention, but only if it actually works! Otherwise, it won't be useful to anyone but those making their livings as "promoters", now will it?
Can we at least try to hold off on the incredible conclusions until we receive some actual test results and some idea of the test conditions used? When I see how rapidly and prematurely certain people leap to enormous and certain conclusions based on unclear and incomplete information, it gives me much reason to doubt the soundness of all their other conclusions and the accuracy of their reports in general! Does it not effect you that way as well? Let's at least try to use a little bit of scientific method!
Humbugger
Dear Humbugger,
Did I start to do the happy dance or something? It's kind of worrisome that, from that plain commentary you quoted, you understand that I am praising the victory of mankind over the energy problems or whatever. Don't start seeing giants where there's only windmills.
Sorry, Iosh, if I seemed to exaggerate your conclusions. I take it you agree then? No conclusions can be scientifically made until all assumptions are clarified and errors eliminated? And they have not yet even been presented, much less scrutinized. Am I wrong?
Even if the big assumption of equal input and output voltages is true, and if we accept a 6A input current and 10A "output current" measurement, there cannot be any conclusion of overunity without considering the load phase angle and the pulsed/vs/steady-state operation duty cycle. You can read all the reasons for this right here in this thread.
That is why even your basic conclusion statement: "Well, so from your explanation Chas' machine does achieve 166% efficiency when putting in 800W." is not logical; it does not follow. 166% efficiency could only be concluded if we knew several more facts than are presented (even as assumptions) in Stefan's report. That's why I included yours in my list of premature and unscientific conclusions.
Humbugger
I just tried to reach Ash again,
but he was not at home and his mobile phone is only
on answering machine mode.
He told me yeasterday, that they did take full videos
of all the things they saw and that he will soon post an indeepth
report about all of it with videos etc...
So I guess stay tuned and don?t
try to make conclusion up yet, until he will come again to over here
and report fully what he saw.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 01, 2007, 11:06:53 PM
I just tried to reach Ash again,
but he was not at home and his mobile phone is only
on answering machine mode.
He told me yeasterday, that they did take full videos
of all the things they saw and that he will soon post an indeepth
report about all of it with videos etc...
So I guess stay tuned and don?t
try to make conclusion up yet, until he will come again to over here
and report fully what he saw.
Regards, Stefan.
I totally agree and thank you for making your position very clear that you, also, are taking a scientific approach and awating the complete data prior to making any conclusions regarding success or failure to demonstrate OU. I am very interested to see and hear what Charles and Ashtweth have to report.
Humbugger
Quote
Hi Ashtweth
Perhaps you can find a Network Line there to establish a online Connection via ICQ
helmut
I know,what i had in mind, by asking for a lifeconnection.
Hopefully noting bad happend to them.
helmut
Okay, I just now spoke again with Ash on his mobile phone
and now the connection was much better.
He told me, that the big like Bessler wheel and the multiple
flywheel device are 2 different devices.
In the last video posted they were only hooked together just for a show.
But when the Bessler like wheel should run on its own, it does
not yet now, as it was built from too cheap parts, so this
oscillates too much and gets to a stop.
But Chas has disclosed all details to Ash and Andrew from
panacea-bocaf.org and they also have it all on video.
Chas also wants us to replicate his Bessler like wheel, so
we can try to get it to run with better parts.
Now to the device which was first in the Australian TV news,
his multiple flywheel system.
Ash said, it is powered by a crappy 240 Volts AC drive motor, which already draws
about 200 Watts of input power, when nothing is connected to this motor,
so this drive motor already has huge losses itsself and is not very efficient.
Now this drive motor powers this chain of flywheels via gears or pullies
and then at the end of the chain a 240 Volts AC inverter is hooked up.
Now when the drive motor has to power all the flywheels and the alternator
it has an input current of about 6 amps, which means the input power
is about 1440 Watts . (Power factor cos phi not calculated in...)
When Ash connected 2 x 500 Watts halogen bulbs this drove the flywheel
setup down in RPM and the system became unstable, so they
were only able to do this for about 10 seconds.
This seemed to be too much load on the alternator...
Then they used for instance a hacksaw and some drill as the load
on the alternator, which of course have motors in them
which drew more input current at the start and they did this like
3 seconds on and 3 seconds off, so the duty cycle was about 50 : 50.
At this intervalling they could draw 10 amps pulses for 3 seconds from the alternator,
which did not bog down the alternator...and the drive motor stayed always at
6 amps at 240 Volts input.
But this is calculated in with the duty cycle 50:50 also only:
240 Volts x 10 amps= 2400 Watts / 2 = 1200 Watts of output power..
So the input power is still more than the output power...
But Ash said, Chas did disclose all the gear ratios and
setup things, so nothing was hidden and they were very thankful to him.
Also they have a new apointment to test this system with their own
RV motor setup as the drive motor and then they will really see,
how good this system works...
So when this crappy drive motor is still used, nothing can be
said in this moment conclusively...
Also we should wait until we will see the video they are just editing
and putting together now.
Ash said this Bessler wheel thing looks very amazing and
convincing and we should really wait, until we see his video !
So I have to thank Ash and Chas again for the openess and
giving full disclosure.
Regards, Stefan.
so it wasn't "free power" from the start because it was all made of "crappy parts" to begin with? assuming we use better parts will make it Over Unity? hmmm will see when the video arrives.
i could be wrong about all this.
:) peace
Thanks a lot to Chas and Ash! Wait for the reports! In my opinion, both systems belong together. The flywheels alone are NOT overunity in any kind. And the bessler-wheel alone will not turn continously without the flywheels, because the weight has to be kept in unbalanced state throu storaged and wired-back energy. Has nothing to do with bad quality parts. It runs only together. Maybe it is not easy for Chas to give away his baby in a very first demonstration.
???
Apparently Charles, like many inventors, is a bit of a showman. Nothing inherently wrong with that, I suppose, but even an appearance of purposeful deception or circus-like distraction does detract from the credible nature of any claim and the purported good "world community" intentions in my opinion.
I refer to the following bit of surprising information:
We are now to understand that the big "gravity wheel" has absolutely nothing to do with the electrical apparatus and never has. Hrmph! So now there is no more claim that the electrical device is "gravity-powered" or gets any useful output energy from cleverly-harnessed gravitational forces.
We are looking, it seems, at two entirely different and separate devices, neither of which exhibits self-running or even close to unity COP. Is this entirely a case of wrong measurements in the past leading to unrealistic expectations or has something gone terribly wrong with the devices suddenly, I wonder.
Or are there other possible explanations that, if merely mentioned by the likes of me in this context at this time would certainly lead to my banning from the forum? [Humbugger gets out his chalk and begins writing on the blackboard: " I will not negatively speculate nor accuse nor ridicule. I will only ask sincere questions. I will forever push for use of scientific methods and careful analysis."]
I know "free energy promoters" just really hate this part, but it is very important for scientific research purposes, if the science is to advance, prosper and grow, to analyze and understand what is behind any significant difference between the original expectations and the light of reality. Doing a post-mortem on failed experiments is the key to understanding why the expectations were not met and progressively moving swiftly forward, albeit often in a new direction.
Is there a theory proposed by anyone involved as to why any excess energy might reasonably be expected from a system of standard motor/pullies/flywheels/alternator? Have there been accidental changes made or some kind of rapid deterioration or sabotage since the 800W input 3500W output figures were suggested? Was there a basic error made in calculation or measurement? Have the bearings gone bad?
Although I still look forward to seeing the presentation and the measurement methods used, it certainly sounds like Charles has a bit further to go before the first joule of free energy appears.
I was particularly dismayed to hear that it was not possible to run 1KW of pure resistive load for more than ten seconds without the system nearly coming unglued despite a continuous 1440W input and a purported 3500W output capability! Something must be terribly wrong there!
The delta between "the talk and the walk" is so enormous it just begs an explanation. What gives here? Can anyone explain this?
Humbugger
Hi Stefan
That sounds very promising
Thanks to Chas and Ashtweth.
Quote
Chas also wants us to replicate his Bessler like wheel, so
we can try to get it to run with better parts.
The Day will come,that we start with Replications.We will learn from it ,and
we will be able to improove something as possible.
helmut
At least they are healthy.
I think,
just let is wait, until we see the video Ash and his partner did at Chas?s home.
Then we can see in detail, what was there.
As Chas has said before, with his flywheel device he is trying to exract
some kind of inertia energy via pulse-loading the flywheels via the output alternator..
Let us just wait and see, what Ash recorded there.
Also Ash said, that the big Bessler like wheel was very astonishing
to him and that one really must see its function and that this
has merit.
Anyway, just let us wait and see, what was filmed there.
Ash told me, that they are already busy putting the movie together.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: wattsup on August 31, 2007, 11:18:19 AM
Well my home internet connection is down again. Can only use at the office.
@DingusMungus
That software you talked about. Went on the site. They are asking $5000 dollars for a single liscence. Are they dreaming or am I mistaken.
WMD is on emule ;)
Welcome back Ash,
when will you post your report ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Guys, am soo sorry to be in late :-\, i had had an influx of people ringing and Inquiries, plus still have the non profit org to maintain. And my mobile phone sux!!
Thanks to Laurence, Hum and Stefan and ALL!. This has helped, and is why we need a Granted research and development center!! http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ResearchandDevelopment.htm
I will add all this into the Chas Video presentation, so we can help educate the world and faculties. We will be AT a university soon with our Water fuel cell (Ravi/Daves replication).I will be presenting allot of research in support of you guys. http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RandDprinciples.htm
Now...what an inspiring day, First i must mention Chas is true to his word and wanted independent replication and just grant support. Chas never stated he could load his devices and maintain the proper tuning. He still wants to improve and wants you all to build his perpetual Wheel and or improve his motor/Gen/flywheel system, he is still looking to get some grant endorsement to build a better system. His ideas are sound.We will prepare this for him in the video presentation.
Chas also understood, that to be a 'marketing genius' or for disclosure you have to allow INDEPENDENT REPLICATION OF THE DEVICE, then it becomes science. If you claim OU, you propose the theory and device, you then let people (if your not open sourced -under non disclosure) reproduce your results, Then it becomes science, live and learn Steorn.
Just to clarify what Stefan said, the duty cycle is important!, so is pulsing gravity devices.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/VeljkoMilkovic.htm
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/WangShumHo.htm
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=203.0;attach=9173
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,203.45.html
The RV was pulsed with a prony Break, and for 500 watts gave out 1HP
@Hum, please prony break the RV, a man as vigorous as you can find out that centrifugal force and pulsing needs more experimentation and understanding by us.
"Doug Konzen?s prony Break testing
For the third time I tested the 7.5hp Baldor motor with the series adding wiring which
gives 5.9 ohms resistance to each phase. This time I tore the motor all the way down
first, photographed the internal wiring and labels, and also oiled the bearings just a bit
with some "Kroil" brand hi-tech lubricant.
The phases are wired in Y fashion - and the motor is run in Hector's roto vertor-mode
with a 7UF run cap across lines 2 and 3. At 1650rpm no-load idle, the motor draws
.3Aac @ 120Vac with the 7UF cap.
Any amount of force from the prony brake that exceeds approx 80 ounces on the scale
with the corresponding amps input of approx 2.3Aac will bring the motor to a stop.
In this testing, and the previous too, it has been found that this particular RV'd 3ph
7.5hp Baldor AC motor only likes just a couple narrow "notches" of speed and torque
being squeezed from the shaft by the foot-long Teflon-collar prony brake.
And as before in the two earlier test-runs done this week, it was possible to keep a
consistent force of 54 ounces (3.375LBFT) on the scale, which corresponds to a
simultaneous reading of 1 Aac @ 120Vac input to the motor showing on the meters.
And also a force of 43 ounces (2.687LBFT) and the simultaneous .8 Aac @ 120Vac
input to motor on the meters was another narrow notch-of-power from the shaft to
extract.
So again, it is almost a full HP (746watts) of shaft-power from under 120 watts
electrical input, and still haven?t tried out more UF values to the run-cap in order to
fine-tune it to the load.
RESULTS:
1/20/2007
120VAc grid-power input
7.5HP Baldor motor
.81 power-factor rated showing on label (stock rating)
88% efficiency rating on label (stock rating)
7UF run-cap used in both tests
Test #1:
.8Aac X 120Vac = 96watts input
2.687 LBFT X 1550rpm / 5250 = .793HP X 746 = 591 watts output
Test #2:
1Aac X 120Vac = 120watts input
3.375 LBFT X 1500rpm /5250 = .96HP X 746 = 716watts output"
End
At first we connected two 500 watt restive load lights, and it de tuned the system exactly like Chas said it should. All this pointed to the energy being stored in the fly wheel. After two of my engineers had to leave, i had an idea to pulse the load out based on my research with panacea, mainly konesheads proney break test.
We connected two AC amp meters, on on the drive motor, and one on the alternator where the load went through. You will see on the video, Chas and i pulsed out the power tools, a drop saw and a hand saw, we also put it under load as you will see on the video.
The figure on the video shows the tools drew 10 amps when pulsed on and off in 2-3 seconds, (prob more like 2) The input remained steady on 6 amps. This was for about 5 minutes constant. We will conduct more tests and will conduct what ever you all request. We will be attaching the RV which i predict will take the input down to 3 amps/10 amps pulsed out 1-2 seconds all at 240 volts. We can also Gear it down and freq drive the fly wheel from the RV. http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=9089608413203959523
@hum
Alt is 240 volts
Now, Before any one passes judgment and or gets excited.Chas has built a perpetual wheel, the big one you see in the video has been made to spin just using gravity, using snooker balls and Chas wants you all to improve and build the system, ill be sending it to Patrick Kelly to write up.
He explains the system himself via diagram and we show you how the wheel spins, he proved the concept by using 3 balls which made the wheel continuous and should it would go onto do what he said it would if the balls were constantly cycling.
He could not build it as robust as he wanted, so it vibrates and makes the balls fall off and de tune his wheel, he has had to use very primitive materials (TIN), he needs better materials/grants etcs. You will see this is amazing on what he had to build, and you can see on the video that if the big wheel didn't wobble the balls would consistently cycle and turn the wheel!!
Guys please be patient for the video and PM wheel instructions, we have allot to edit and present, my partner had to goto Sydney for the week and is editing now, ill give you the ratio's of his motor gen flywheel system, as he wanted, we will above to wait for the perpetual wheel instructions till we finish the edits please be patient ;D.
Conclusion, more is needed to be done to assess and provide a better presentation. This will be done, on the 15th of Sep.
RV drive motor will be added to cut the Crappy 6 amp draw down to 3 amps
Duty cycle will be more vigorous for Stefan
FET IGBT pulsed circuit into a load will be constructed
Freq driven RV test will be done
On his perpetual wheel
conclusion IT WORKS!!! Chas's expertise is in Gravity wheels so far, his ideas remain plausible based on his understanding of how his system preforms, he never claimed any thing which wasn't going on.
Chas's spirit was to give this away, his heart is in the right place and he should be supported [Granted] and encouraged here are his ratio's till we get the edits done
He is also on video explaining these for you guys. Editing will be done soon
On Behalf of Panacea-bocaf and OU forum, i would personally like to thank Chas for his altruism.
More to come...
Drive motor-1430
motor speed 1430rpm pulley -2.75inches to 5.5inches
cuts the speed of the motor in half.
then 5 inch pulley
8 inch pulley
4 inch pulley
9 inch pulley
4.5 inch pulley-> ALT 3146 watts 240 volt 50 hertz.
fly wheel 72 inch thick
12 mil custom
6 lay
10-20 kilos
Guys you have to wait till the video is done to see the new set up and apply these raitos, THIS IS NOT THE OLD SET UP
This does the same as the old set up but is the simplified set up.
Hi Ash,
many thanks for this first report.
Looking forward to see the videos.
Maybe the big Bessler like wheel with the snooker
balls will be easier to build for the first time than the flywheel
motor-generator system.
So try to get the Bessler wheel video first out.
Many thanks again to Chas for make it publically availble.
Many thanks again.
Regards, Stefan.
Please put me on the list of people who want to learn more about the gravity wheel.
You're doing a great job, Ash!
Hi Stefan, gravitar
Your right , i neglected to say that Chas's motor/gen/flywheel is still at an R and D stage , at this point, but should none the less be experimented with and improved.
His 'Bessler wheel' is ready to go now, and i see no reason why it cannot do what he said it can, just emailing my partner now to get the wheel edits done and uploaded.
Guys mean time check this out for instructions of gravity powered devices
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D21.pdf
@Ash
I went to see that pdf and honestly, besides the Milkovic device, all the others are dead enders. They will never work. Nice on paper but you can see the dead ends. I will not elaborate more.
As for the Chas Perpetual Motion Wheel (CPMW) I am looking forward to seeing this and to understand how he is dealing with the lifting and transfer of weight. Hurry, hurry I can't weight! lol
As for the Chas Flywheel Generator, please keep in mind that this is not an RV device and that should you put an RV set-up there, it will not work since the PM will have reduced torque and die. Also, you may consider then to put a bigger motor under RV but then again, this will risk breaking the present set-up of wheels, pulleys, etc.
I think it is best to leave the device alone and do the study as it is. No changes, no modifications because you risk breaking the device. What we need is the facts as they really are now, to be as complete as possible to enable replication once we learn more of the OU rates.
So whatever you do, do not touch the device or modify it. Treat it like a delicate flower that you see in nature. You can leave it alone and admire it for what it is, or you can poke at it or pluck it out of the ground and wait till it withers away. We need to make sure you are not doing the latter in the name of RV. This is not an RV. I would not have said this but your relation to RV in your other posts is getting me worried and I would only wish for you to maintain your objectivity as an OU investigator and not an RV proposer.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 03, 2007, 04:01:10 AM
Guys mean time check this out for instructions of gravity powered devices
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D21.pdf
Hi Ash
Thank you very much vor this Link.By reading i have learned realy something.
helmut
Quote from: wattsup on September 03, 2007, 02:03:24 PM
@Ash
As for the Chas Perpetual Motion Wheel (CPMW) I am looking forward to seeing this and to understand how he is dealing with the lifting and transfer of weight. Hurry, hurry I can't wait! lol
As for the Chas Flywheel Generator, please keep in mind that this is not an RV device and that should you put an RV set-up there, it will not work since the PM will have reduced torque and die. Also, you may consider then to put a bigger motor under RV but then again, this will risk breaking the present set-up of wheels, pulleys, etc.
So whatever you do, do not touch the device or modify it.....
Dear wattsup and Ash,
I do agree with wattsup on leaving the present setup as it is. As you would have guessed, I am using the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory. I explain the source of energy as "Pulsed Rotation Leading Out Gravitational Energy".
We are hunting for the right pulse frequency. Any shift from the ideal or resonance setup will produce negative results. The simple setup in my apartment taught me that. With tuning, the rotational time of my "mechanical pulse rotational device" changed from < 1 minute to > 30 minutes.
The better approach is to have a
second setup for the additional experiments. Hope the suggestion is useful.
Keep up the excellent work,
Lawrence Tseung
"The RV was pulsed with a prony Break, and for 500 watts gave out 1HP" ~ Ashtweth
I am at a complete loss to understand this statement. How does one "pulse" a deProny brake? What does the statement mean?
Humbugger
On a Besller wheel, it seems that the number of offset mass levers need to be even, not odd. I've had far better success with even than odd. As well, one needs to use a concentrated mass, like a billiard ball, or large ball bearings. This high mass means it can get over it's 'lurch point', and toss the two 'horizontal' masses to their respective positions and opposite sides of the fulcrum..and then turn the wheel due to their uneven mass distribution on either side of the fulcrum. 12 is better than 8. 14 is better than 12, 16 is better than 14, etc, etc. BUT THE LAYOUT IS THE SAME. Opposition (perfect mirroring of positions of the opposing tube) of the tubes must be exact.
In the supplied picture, I have tried water. Water will work, but it will be a dang slow wheel! And the offset masses need to be big..and long! Shorter tubes with ball bearings are the likely way to go. I tried it today, for $40. Basically some PVC tubing, the pressure test caps, and some electrical tape. And a bit of water. When I did 8 on my bike wheel, I had one heck of a time getting the distribution corect, as the wheel has a set of NINE primary spoke sets for acting as a placement guide. When I did 8, (but the distribution/layout was not perfect)...the dang thing kept trying to take off on me! I could not get it to be perfect in the layout, in such a short time. I need the bike wheel bearing set --but a better layout grid. Like 8 or 10, but not 9. The 9 left me with too much mass on the one side and no perfection in the mirroring of the horizontal load shift point (which is GRAVITY 'effect' FREE, only FRICTION!) (well,a small amount of an incline to get the ball or water to go to the other end of the tube). I chose water due to the low friction. It will work with a bigger wheel and longer tubes. But water froths a bit and not much mass for a small concentrated area. Ball bearings or big weights work best. It's all I could come up with in side of the whole two-three hours I've spent on Bessler wheels. (I'm dead serious, this is the first time I even look at the subject of a Bessler wheel) Ball bearings, as well, don't actually 'stop' in the wheel. They are always moving. They increase in speed (aceleration) and decelerate, but never actually stop, thus, they don't have to overcome a static postion in the aether. The old speed up and then quickly stopped, then re-started dynamo trick, where it takes 10% or so less power the second time to start the dynamo, as the quick stop/restart means the ZPE is still spinning. Thus less power required to get to 'speed' the second time. (look that one up, you'll find it interesting)
If you look at the supplied photo..and see the way that the mass will distribute to the center, near the fulcrum, on the left side..and distribute to the outer ring on the right side, you can see how the seeming work is done. Tubes are 18" long,and 1.5" inner diameter. Next comes the 8-10-12 tubes and the ball bearings. Look up the operation of the Bessler Wheel, the description from observers of his time. Lots of noise! Bang those weights around!
What does science miss?
Well..work is done in the lifting and dropping, yes. But what they don't seem to remember to teach you, is that gravity has a GRADIENT..it is POLARIZED, and it is ORIENTED. In other words, it is a polarized, oriented gradient. This means that, for the larger part, only friction serves up notice of it's existence in the "horizontal mass locational shift point". Then the leveraged weighting takes over, and turns the wheel. If the intertia (edit: I meant kinetic energy as it is in motion) is high enough, after this work is done..then the next set of weights that exactly physically oppose and mirror one another reach the horizontal plane..and then....slightly beyond that point..they both shift positions.....then move to their respective ends of their tubes...and then they do their leverage thing..and on to the next pair. Etc, etc, etc...= rotation. With the caveat of enough leverage and inertia. Thus the high mass wheels work the best. Ie, a heavy pair of opposing weights will have a high mass differential, with respect to the mass the wheel components have.
It's a dang simple trick.
Like Bessler said.
(Yes, that is a ER1200 water torch in the background, there. A fun toy if there ever was one.)
Are you telling us that your wheel spins indefinitely on its own? How about a video?
Quote from: Prophmaji on September 03, 2007, 10:40:52 PM
On a Besller wheel, it seems that the number of offset mass levers need to be even, not odd. I've had far better success with even than odd. As well, one needs to use a concentrated mass, like a billiard ball, or large ball bearings. This high mass means it can get over it's 'lurch point', and toss the two 'horizontal' masses to their respective positions and opposite sides of the fulcrum..and then turn the wheel due to their uneven mass distribution on either side of the fulcrum. 12 is better than 8. 14 is better than 12, 16 is better than 14, etc, etc. BUT THE LAYOUT IS THE SAME. Opposition (perfect mirroring of positions of the opposing tube) of the tubes must be exact.
In the supplied picture, I have tried water. Water will work, but it will be a dang slow wheel! And the offset masses need to be big..and long! Shorter tubes with ball bearings are the likely way to go. I tried it today, for $40. Basically some PVC tubing, the pressure test caps, and some electrical tape. And a bit of water. When I did 8 on my bike wheel, I had one heck of a time getting the distribution corect, as the wheel has a set of NINE primary spoke sets for acting as a placement guide. When I did 8, (but the distribution/layout was not perfect)...the dang thing kept trying to take off on me! I could not get it to be perfect in the layout, in such a short time. I need the bike wheel bearing set --but a better layout grid. Like 8 or 10, but not 9. The 9 left me with too much mass on the one side and no perfection in the mirroring of the horizontal load shift point (which is GRAVITY 'effect' FREE, only FRICTION!) (well,a small amount of an incline to get the ball or water to go to the other end of the tube). I chose water due to the low friction. It will work with a bigger wheel and longer tubes. But water froths a bit and not much mass for a small concentrated area. Ball bearings or big weights work best. It's all I could come up with in side of the whole two-three hours I've spent on Bessler wheels. (I'm dead serious, this is the first time I even look at the subject of a Bessler wheel) Ball bearings, as well, don't actually 'stop' in the wheel. They are always moving. They increase in speed (aceleration) and decelerate, but never actually stop, thus, they don't have to overcome a static postion in the aether. The old speed up and then quickly stopped, then re-started dynamo trick, where it takes 10% or so less power the second time to start the dynamo, as the quick stop/restart means the ZPE is still spinning. Thus less power required to get to 'speed' the second time. (look that one up, you'll find it interesting)
If you look at the supplied photo..and see the way that the mass will distribute to the center, near the fulcrum, on the left side..and distribute to the outer ring on the right side, you can see how the seeming work is done. Tubes are 18" long,and 1.5" inner diameter. Next comes the 8-10-12 tubes and the ball bearings. Look up the operation of the Bessler Wheel, the description from observers of his time. Lots of noise! Bang those weights around!
What does science miss?
Well..work is done in the lifting and dropping, yes. But what they don't seem to remember to teach you, is that gravity has a GRADIENT..it is POLARIZED, and it is ORIENTED. In other words, it is a polarized, oriented gradient. This means that, for the larger part, only friction serves up notice of it's existence in the "horizontal mass locational shift point". Then the leveraged weighting takes over, and turns the wheel. If the intertia is high enough, after this work is done..then the next set of weights that exactly physically oppose and mirror one another reach the horizontal plane..and then....slightly beyond that point..they both shift positions.....then move to their respective ends of their tubes...and then they do their leverage thing..and on to the next pair. Etc, etc, etc...= rotation. With the caveat of enough leverage and inertia. Thus the high mass wheels work the best. Ie, a heavy pair of opposing weights will have a high mass differential, with respect to the mass the wheel components have
It's a dang simple trick.
Like Bessler said.
(Yes, that is a ER1200 water torch in the background, there. A fun toy if there ever was one.)
hi,
so does it work on its own? please show us blueprint.
thanks :)
oh and welcome to overunity.com :D
peace
Hi Lawrence, Watts and Hum.
>don't put the RV set-up there, it will not work since the PM will have reduced torque and die.
@Watts
Okay, the RV will deliver .8-1.13 HP at 50 hertz, and will idle [free wheel] on POINT ONE OF AN AMP [ACA] when loaded at 1HP will deliver 94+% efficiency most 1HP induction motors barley get to 88%
The RV was vs a normal 3/4 horse power motor in a drill, (Chas motor is a 3/4 HP motor)
The 3/4 HP motor drill .idles at 2.25 ACA
The RV Drill idles at 0.4 ACA
When loaded
The 3/4 HP motor drill went to 2.28+ ACA
The RV Drill under same load went to 0.7 ACA!
Proof is here-http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8060034688864982719
The RV's torque and idle current can be improved and efficiency preserved with the FREQ drive.
BTW the RV in that test spun at 2900 RPM the motor it versed spun at 1450!!!
Okay, we will measure BOTH SET UPS, keep Laurence's idea and get his data then get his measurements and get EVERY ones requests, guys i feel the RV should be tried, don't worry we will preserve the original and get you your measurements.
Chas motor is a crappy 1430 or so motor, that eats 200 watts just to free wheel, when loaded at 3/4 HP sucks in around 1000 watts.
The RV can idle on 50 watts, [unloaded] and deliver more power on demand for 3/4 HP.
@ Hum
The proney was pulsed, as in when the Break is 'clutched' or attached to the Shaft, the weight attached to the shaft[proney] hits the scales and the electricity power is turned off, so its a pulse., not a consistent load. its easy to try i bet it will show you mechanical OU.
@ All
we are confirmed now to get data for this circuit one of our open sourced panacea engineers is working on. Yes Laurence pulse freq ! what do you think of this idea?
"So do the flywheels begin to slow down when a load is on it? If so, yep we could use an RPM sensor but a circuit that needs to also monitor what the RPM should be.
Now there is another way.
What we can do is monitor the current from the prime mover, and if this exceeds our limit have it automatically shut off the Generator. Actually this would be the easiest and simplest thing we can do. And when the current of the PM goes back to normal it activates the Gen again.
Hey, got a better idea.!!
If the generator its self has a large enough flywheel, what we should do is use something like an electric clutch used on car air conditioners. So mate, what this means is that when the current exceeds our limit on the PM, the clutch disengages so the PM can build up momentum but the Gen has large enough mass in the flywheel to keep some momentum. Once the PM is back to normal the clutch engages pulling the Gen back up to speed.
I think this would be the best option because the clutch and switching sequence would find there own resonance where it pulsates at a frequency depending on what the load demands are.
I mean the car air conditioner clutch has its own pulley built on it and all you have to do is fix it to a shaft. Couldn't be simpler mate.!!!-End
The RV can only be evaluated FROM THE COMPILATIONS
@Hum
It's obvoius this wheel will not turn on its own but what Prophmaji is showing is a good assessement of the actual problem in such wheels. If the wheel is brought to its best action, the problem will be concentrated in two points. Surmount these two points and you're even closer.
@Prophmaji
Look at my wheel which I am changing soon for plastic 1" and 1" ball bearings.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3070.msg45101.html#msg45101
Try cutting the tubes shorter and place them more on a horizontal plane at 12 o'clock to the right and at 6 o"clock to the left, like in my wheel.
I am only missing now the actual ball bearing inertia to act on the wheel, but my aluminium wheel is to heavy for the shifting mass. So with a new plastic wheel it will weight 1/3 and will use 1" ball instead of the 3/4" balls I am using now.
Also, if you are serious about wheels, you must put 100% to the overall balance of the wheel itself without the weights. This is critical or you are doomed to failure from the start.
wattsup
Quote
hi,
so does it work on its own? please show us blueprint.
thanks :)
oh and welcome to overunity.com :D
peace
It does not spin on it's own. But I can see the reasons why and the person who replied before me, concerning the issues at hand, has seemingly assessed them correctly.
Everything that needs to be shown or spoken about, or explained, is in the post and the photo. Nothing remains to be done. Chas's big wheel shows the properly working, properly made version of what you see attched to my bicycle wheel. He seems to have the addition of some sort of mass or a cover for his billiard balls that might represent an additional offset mass/lever system.
In the photo I supplied, you see the raw mechanics itself. Except, a working one would use steel balls and eight perfectly mirrored and positioned tubes, not the 9 in the photo. Use 10 tubes. Or 12, but always mirrored and exact. Once you see what that does (the horizontal shift point of the masses), you will begin to see other ways of achieving the same trick.
I was also using a 100th of a gram accuracy scale for the weighing of all attached components. Except for the electrical tape. The whole exersize, for me, was to check the validity of the entire idea and process. I am satisfied that it is a good direction and it is very likely to achieve success. The basic science is sound.
As for a lighter wheel and letting the inertia component be the bearing balls for the larger part...that makes sense. When I added more water, the inertia really slowed things down. Less water worked better, also due to the location of the center of the water's mass with respect to both sides of the fulcrum, and the lever action. Which is why the ball bearing is the better idea. In the intial version with 8 perfectly spaced (but not perfectly enough!) tubes, I had them further out and more horizontal (offset), as you suggest. It felt more agressive, in terms of it's willingness to rotate. I expect the offset angle that the tubes must be, in relation to the radius of the wheel... to be a 'golden', or known number, one related to many such enedavors. Not just a random number (angle) or position, but likely to be a known 'perfect' number that has been employed for centuries, if not millenia.
I would also sugest, to make sure the weights are to the center on the left and to the outer on the right
as soon as is possible to use a flat bottom on your bearing slide area, not curved. You need that left weight tucked in to the center and that right weight out to the edge as soon as possible. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and your aproach is just as sound, as the relative positions of all combatants (steel balls) remain correct, with respect to each opposite.
:)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2F4waygw.jpg&hash=47a8b9b2e5af8332da18123bb03cd3553c76408e)
I need a math guy to figure out all the ratios so that everything turns in unison.
Something that must be considered is that "A" contacts "B" on it's outside and "D" on it's inside, so the thickness of "A" has to be factored in.
So if "A"=1, then "D" will be less than 1, obviously, since it is situated within the circumference of "A". Now, this means that "C" must rotate slightly faster than "A" so that it will match the rotation of "D", which must also rotate slightly faster than "A". "B" and "C" are one piece that rotate together on the same axis.
I'm guessing that "C" will be very close to the same size as "A", and that "B" will be very close to the same size as "D".
Hi Guys just posting an addition to the puled out idea of the the Chas system
"Hi Ash,
Switching off the alternator is a bad idea...as the prime motive of this setup is to generate electricity as and when needed (simplest comparison would be you have lots of food but whats the use when you cant get any into your plate when you really want to eat!).
The simplest way is to have Industrial 3 phase capacitors after the generators to maintain the power factor at 1.0, like we do in our factory by placing higher KVA Capacitors near heavy loading machines to be on the safe side. The current draw is high mostly during the initial startup of these machines so capacitors will do the job. Having an additional fly wheel would take care of it partly but you should also take into account that there are quite many flywheels already being powered for the same reason in this setup itself.
Alternately you could have an electrical clutch mechanism setup rigged with a non-rv'd motor to take care of heavy loading and is switched on ONLY during heavy load requirements....this can be automated with an RPM sensor which would automatically switch on the motor to take care of the additional load and would switch off once the load is attained. Then the rv'd motor takes over the torque requirement. This should work up until the rv'd motor torque efficiencies can be improved.
Let me know how this sounds."
Quote from: Prophmaji on September 03, 2007, 11:54:19 PM
Quote
hi,
so does it work on its own? please show us blueprint.
thanks :)
oh and welcome to overunity.com :D
peace
It does not spin on it's own. But I can see the reasons why and the person who replied before me, concerning the issues at hand, has seemingly assessed them correctly.
Everything that needs to be shown or spoken about, or explained, is in the post and the photo. Nothing remains to be done. Chas's big wheel shows the properly working, properly made version of what you see attched to my bicycle wheel. He seems to have the addition of some sort of mass or a cover for his billiard balls that might represent an additional offset mass/lever system.
In the photo I supplied, you see the raw mechanics itself. Except, a working one would use steel balls and eight perfectly mirrored and positioned tubes, not the 9 in the photo. Use 10 tubes. Or 12, but always mirrored and exact. Once you see what that does (the horizontal shift point of the masses), you will begin to see other ways of achieving the same trick.
I was also using a 100th of a gram accuracy scale for the weighing of all attached components. Except for the electrical tape. The whole exersize, for me, was to check the validity of the entire idea and process. I am satisfied that it is a good direction and it is very likely to achieve success. The basic science is sound.
As for a lighter wheel and letting the inertia component be the bearing balls for the larger part...that makes sense. When I added more water, the inertia really slowed things down. Less water worked better, also due to the location of the center of the water's mass with respect to both sides of the fulcrum, and the lever action. Which is why the ball bearing is the better idea. In the intial version with 8 perfectly spaced (but not perfectly enough!) tubes, I had them further out and more horizontal (offset), as you suggest. It felt more agressive, in terms of it's willingness to rotate. I expect the offset angle that the tubes must be, in relation to the radius of the wheel... to be a 'golden', or known number, one related to many such enedavors. Not just a random number (angle) or position, but likely to be a known 'perfect' number that has been employed for centuries, if not millenia.
I would also sugest, to make sure the weights are to the center on the left and to the outer on the right as soon as is possible to use a flat bottom on your bearing slide area, not curved. You need that left weight tucked in to the center and that right weight out to the edge as soon as possible. Perhaps I'm wrong about that and your aproach is just as sound, as the relative positions of all combatants (steel balls) remain correct, with respect to each opposite.
:)
Do you think that a curved tube would have an advantage over a straight tube? Just thinking about it, seems that the ball would roll back at a lower elevation during the loss cycle??
Has anyone considered that Chas's wheel is simply plugged into a wall socket and runs off that? No one has ever been allowed to measure anything as far as input and output - we only have Chas's word for that. And Chas does not appear to be in any hurry to allow full scrutiny.
I also agree with the astute analysis of a previous poster who mentioned the stark discrepancy between the video on the news channel versus the video on Youtube. In the news video, there is no huge gravity wheel, so obviously, it is just a red herring. And if that is not necessary, what makes you think any of the other wheels are?
I personally think you could just get rid of all the wheels, plug a power strip into a wall socket and run your saw and light and fan off that, and you would end up ahead, since you would not have to make the spinny wheels turn.
hmm, it's a lot easier to roll a heavy round object horizontally than it is to lift vertically yes?
so what if all tubes are always at a horizontal position as the wheel rotates... then all you have to do is roll the round weight inside the tube to cause leverage advantage. maybe a smot to cause the ball to roll would work. the smot is not going uphill so the sticky spot shouldn't be a problem.
@GraViTaR
All that's happening is A and D are turning B and C. But how?
@Prophmaji
The thing is this;
- the more you got to the center on the left side, the less you have height on the right side.
- the more you go right on the right side, the faster it will be transferred to the left side.
There is a very small portion of left to right, right to left and then that small difference has to be overcome by inertia only if the balls are then at the right weight versus mass rotation.
About the curves, if you had two identical incline points, one straight and one curved, the ball on the curved inclined will go from point A to B faster than on the straight incline, even though it has farther to travel. The curves help the ball move right alot sooner.
@Ash
The thing with comparing a 3/4 hp drill motor to an RV is that you are drilling what exactly.
Try drilling with a 3/4" steel bit into a 1" steel bar. The RV will probably never make it half way or if it does, look at the amps and feel how hot it is getting.
Motors are chosen to do a job. For a drill, this can range from drilling 1/16" into pine wood, or drilling 1" into steel. The jobs vary and for such variations, I find RV to be at two set-points only. Out of that and your toast.
It's like saying put a flow restrictor on your shower. Your body still needs the minimal amount of water to properly rinse itself so weather you take 1 minute or 2 minutes, you will still use that amount of water to rinse yourself.
I used to sell electronic triac based power factor correction systems that were originally invented by NASA and licensed to a few USA makers. We'd put them on drills cause it would provide current proportional to real load conditions. At no load your saving and at full load, your spending juice. But you are doing the job.
Here is the point. Ask Chas if the motor he is using now was the motor he started to use in the beginning. If he tells you things like, Oh no, I started with a 1 hp then went down to a 1/2 hp until finally I found this 3/4 hp to work best, then you should leave it alone and just do the OU investigation as is. The guy spent years getting to this point, and that is the point we want to know about.
1430 rpm means more torque compared to the same motor at 2500 rpm.
Right now I am confused by what you are saying because you're mixing both up.
Please, put he RV aside and concentrate on the original Chas system. The one he says WORKS.
When it's time to replicate, you can then do your RV tests to see the advantage, if any.
What we would like to know is watts in/ watts out and how this was measured.
Watts, i have put a thick bit of steal under full load with the RV, ill make a video to show you, it did not buckle, your reasoning is based on you not doing the same experiment, the RV can deliver 3/4 HP more efficiently then any other motor, do the Test yourself, i have done it, id rather you try it FROM WHAT WE LIST IN THE COMPS.
you do not understand the RV like i do and or how it could be used in the Chas system more effectively, or have put it under load by the same configurations we have-ill attempt to show you.
this is why we are having this conversation.
His induction motor some times free wheels with the system, pulsed on and off , or the belt/flywheel takes an occasional load on and off, the RV can handle this more efficiently as its on 3/4 horse power.
The RV doesnt buckle under this, in fact can go over 1HP
The 7.5 HP 60 hertz can deliver 1.8 HP , if your using double coled motors you have the most efficient 1.8 power on demand motor in the world. This i can also show you
We will keep to the original like i said but will also test the RV and compare efficiency under the same conditions, it s as easy as coupling a motor to the drive wheel.
EDIT
the RV also runs cold Watts please read the compilations and review the video
Also stated a zillion times the Torque and HP can be freq driven to improve it
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 12:53:21 AM
Hi Guys just posting an addition to the puled out idea of the the Chas system
"Hi Ash,
Switching off the alternator is a bad idea...as the prime motive of this setup is to generate electricity as and when needed (simplest comparison would be you have lots of food but whats the use when you cant get any into your plate when you really want to eat!).
The simplest way is to have Industrial 3 phase capacitors after the generators to maintain the power factor at 1.0, like we do in our factory by placing higher KVA Capacitors near heavy loading machines to be on the safe side. The current draw is high mostly during the initial startup of these machines so capacitors will do the job. Having an additional fly wheel would take care of it partly but you should also take into account that there are quite many flywheels already being powered for the same reason in this setup itself.
Alternately you could have an electrical clutch mechanism setup rigged with a non-rv'd motor to take care of heavy loading and is switched on ONLY during heavy load requirements....this can be automated with an RPM sensor which would automatically switch on the motor to take care of the additional load and would switch off once the load is attained. Then the rv'd motor takes over the torque requirement. This should work up until the rv'd motor torque efficiencies can be improved.
Let me know how this sounds."
All of these hocus pocus proposals for different test procedures are bad and would serve only to promote and prolong false beliefs. Anything short of running continuous steady resistive loads and using accurate measurement techniques will lead only to further clouding of the issues and more patently false claims. The idea of using "pulsed loads" or "reactive loads" is just another way to allow and promote totally false energy measurements.
Measuring peak output power levels for short durations on a machine that is being fed continuously and then comparing those numbers to calculate electrical efficiency is just pure crap. Same with loading the device with capacitors, which absorb no energy to speak of...it's all just a bunch of ways to fake good-looking results.
If the machine cannot comfortably produce even a steady ten seconds of 1000W real power output while sucking up a continuous 1440W input, it cannot be reasonably considered as "promising" or any kind of "energy achievement", sad to say. As much as we might like and respect Charles and his great selfless attitude and colorful showmanship, the truthful unvarnished results of this testing and demonstration session are simply that it failed quite clearly to indicate any excess energy or any promise of such whatsoever.
No one seems the least bit interested in learning why there is such a huge difference between what has been promised and reported for so many years and the bare, sad truth that these brief tests reveal. Look at all the dozens of claims published all over the web, including on this site and on panacea, Ashtweth's site.
Free energy! The world's children need this now! Please donate! Come on, man! Now that you have seen for yourself that it isn't true, you should remove the false claims!
It seems that the worse the sad truth is, the thicker the BS and the more convoluted the excuses and jargonistic theories. It's really rather pathetic. What is so hard about being objective, looking at the facts as they are and calling a spade a spade?
The Charles Campbell energy machine does not perform as claimed or as hoped. It does not produce any excess energy. It exhibits normal power and energy losses as entirely predictable by standard textbook analysis. It shows no anomalous or remarkable thermodynamic behaviors. All claims to the contrary were shown to be invalid by a few minutes of simple testing. There! Was that so hard? Let's move on!
Humbugger
Hum, your entitled to your opinion, but you fail to observe the results, if your not working for the oil companies perhaps you should be.
our testing wasn't conclusive and needs more thorough investigation. there is still more ways to test a continuous pulsed duty cycle out, and improve the efficiency, people haven't even seen the video yet, unless your reading from a crystal ball your better off side lined for now IMO.
More testing needs to be done and will give us all the info we need, I think your attitude isn't really on par with being able to benefit ATM.
EDIT
>Look at all the dozens of claims published all over the web, including on this site and on panacea, Ashtweth's site. Free energy! The world's children need this now! Please donate! Come on, man! Now that you have seen for yourself that it isn't true, you should remove the false claims
Also Hum, you going to tell me all the devices listed here don't work - don't need attention and donation?
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RandDprinciples.htm
That is what we say ALONG with the investigation and grants needed with the Chas system.
They and Chas have very sound ideas as well, and needs donation/investigation and understanding, after viewing his gravity wheel and ideas there is no doubt in my mind he could piss on any idea you could come up with
Hum, im going to go off the record now to say you seem to unnecessary piss people off and YOU dont know every thing, in fact i think you really have allot to study, besides conventional theories. thats off the record. And i would change your attitude and not try and offend people
ashtweth
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 02:15:35 AM
Hum, your entitled to your opinion, but you fail to observe the resutls, our testing wasn't conclusive and needs more thorough investigation. there is still more ways to get continuous and test a pulsed duty cycle, and improve the efficiency, people havent even seen the video yet, unless your reading from a crystal ball your better off side lined for now IMO.
more testing that needs to be done and will give us all the info we need, I think your attitude isnt really on par with being able to benefit ATM.
My point is that somehow at some point long ago, you and many others decided there was sufficient information to publish many remarkable claims about this machine...not some future iteration of it...the existing machine. Apparently, all of those hundreds of claims one can find about this machine on the web and elsewhere had no foundation at all.
Now that the first basic simple tests have been done and utter failure has been shown, it seems that you are saying not enough testing has been done! What body of evidence and test results were used as the basis for all the amazing claims?
So, zero testing is sufficient to publicly proclaim miraculous performance and to then use those claims to raise money in the name of the world's children but, when test 1 shows normal non-miraculous ordinary dissapointing results, it is deemed insufficient. How odd. How unscientific. How sad and pathetic.
I am not here to benefit or promote false beliefs or to help you to do so. If you think that means I have a bad attitude, so be it. My attitude is intended to promote the truth and scientific method and clear communication and the genuine progress of knowledge. I make no claims as to having much success at any of those goals here, but at least I am not here to cheerlead any money-raising efforts based on fraudulent claims.
Humbugger
And also Hum the person who described that system to TRY and improve the duty cycle and get a continuous load out, was RAVI, who has replicated Meyer water fuel cell, he also got TWO visits from spooks.
If you know more then him let me see you reproduce what he has and tell him his ideas are shit, and you know more then he does. I said the same to do this With David Kous's battery charging RV system, test it, dont sit there and tell us what doesn't work when its based on an experiment.
Same as the Chas ideas.
its not going to happen hum, your an arm chair enthus person, replicate don't sit there and offend people you may not like whats ahead.And i would re read my post i edited it to be less of a reactive mind To you offending myself.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 04, 2007, 02:42:59 AM
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 02:15:35 AM
Hum, your entitled to your opinion, but you fail to observe the resutls, our testing wasn't conclusive and needs more thorough investigation. there is still more ways to get continuous and test a pulsed duty cycle, and improve the efficiency, people havent even seen the video yet, unless your reading from a crystal ball your better off side lined for now IMO.
more testing that needs to be done and will give us all the info we need, I think your attitude isnt really on par with being able to benefit ATM.
My point is that somehow at some point long ago, you and many others decided there was sufficient information to publish many remarkable claims about this machine...not some future iteration of it...the existing machine. Apparently, all of those hundreds of claims one can find about this machine on the web and elsewhere had no foundation at all.
Now that the first basic simple tests have been done and utter failure has been shown, it seems that you are saying not enough testing has been done! What body of evidence and test results were used as the basis for all the amazing claims?
So, zero testing is sufficient to publicly proclaim miraculous performance and to then use those claims to raise money in the name of the world's children but, when test 1 shows normal non-miraculous ordinary dissapointing results, it is deemed insufficient. How odd. How unscientific. How sad and pathetic.
I am not here to benefit or promote false beliefs or to help you to do so. If you think that means I have a bad attitude, so be it. My attitude is intended to promote the truth and scientific method and clear communication and the genuine progress of knowledge. I make no claims as to having much success at any of those goals here, but at least I am not here to cheerlead any money-raising efforts based on fraudulent claims.
Humbugger
Exactly what is it you think we are claiming on Chas's device, What we state on his gravity wheel i stand by, the need for more investigation on his motor Gen/fly wheel set up i stand by too. The need for his ideas to be endorsed and investigated more and grant backed i also stand by.
The need for beings like you to study more the nature of these devices i stand by
the need for your attitude to change and not piss people off i still stand by'
the need for you to base your claims on verifiable tests, not speculation i also stand by, this is what we are doing with Chas's system so far. More investigation.
I have wasted enough time for now Hum,
Quote from: Humbugger on September 04, 2007, 02:42:59 AM
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 02:15:35 AM
Hum, your entitled to your opinion, but you fail to observe the resutls, our testing wasn't conclusive and needs more thorough investigation. there is still more ways to get continuous and test a pulsed duty cycle, and improve the efficiency, people havent even seen the video yet, unless your reading from a crystal ball your better off side lined for now IMO.
more testing that needs to be done and will give us all the info we need, I think your attitude isnt really on par with being able to benefit ATM.
My point is that somehow at some point long ago, you and many others decided there was sufficient information to publish many remarkable claims about this machine...not some future iteration of it...the existing machine. Apparently, all of those hundreds of claims one can find about this machine on the web and elsewhere had no foundation at all.
Now that the first basic simple tests have been done and utter failure has been shown, it seems that you are saying not enough testing has been done! What body of evidence and test results were used as the basis for all the amazing claims?
So, zero testing is sufficient to publicly proclaim miraculous performance and to then use those claims to raise money in the name of the world's children but, when test 1 shows normal non-miraculous ordinary dissapointing results, it is deemed insufficient. How odd. How unscientific. How sad and pathetic.
I am not here to benefit or promote false beliefs or to help you to do so. If you think that means I have a bad attitude, so be it. My attitude is intended to promote the truth and scientific method and clear communication and the genuine progress of knowledge. I make no claims as to having much success at any of those goals here, but at least I am not here to cheerlead any money-raising efforts based on fraudulent claims.
Humbugger
>My point is that somehow at some point long ago, you and many others decided there was sufficient information to publish many remarkable claims about this machine...not some future iteration of it...the existing machine. Apparently, all of those hundreds of claims one can find about this machine on the web and elsewhere had no foundation at all.
Okay listen up, hum, my patience is running very thin with you BTW
If your referring to me Hum, being panacea, the panacea page objectively published how to go about disclosing his device, what political and economic conditions were ahead given the nature of his device, and how to go about explaining an COP of more then one to the faculties. Plus that it wasn't justified that the government and faculties dont investigate it. We published what was claimed by Chas.
We went in to investigate our selfs and are still doing that, we have found his gravity wheel to be fine, and that his motor gen-fly wheel needs experimentation and more tests.
>Now that the first basic simple tests have been done and utter failure has been shown, it seems that you are saying not enough testing has been done! What body of evidence and test results were used as the basis for all the amazing claims?
No utter failure has been shown, we tried some pulsed load and based on the ideas we have to improve the efficiency of his motor fly wheel, we will verify its duty cycle as request by ours and others. Chas never statednhe could load his system continuous, read and wake up hum , don't continue to piss me off and waste my time here.
Im sarting to think your an oil man mate, i would be careful offending people, and trying to TELL ME what i have done. change you attitude, or i might start offending you.
>I am not here to benefit or promote false beliefs or to help you to do so. If you think that means I have a bad attitude, so be it. My attitude is intended to promote the truth and scientific method and clear communication and the genuine progress of knowledge. I make no claims as to having much success at any of those goals here, but at least I am not here to cheerlead any money-raising efforts based on fraudulent claims.
you going to be a basis for insults soon Hum. Also I know some oil man are here, hope you dont get caught being one.
"Exactly what is it you think we are claiming on Chas's device?"
Chas's system is critically needed to provide third world countries with clean free power and to advance the mainstream sciences curriculars. Chas's system can provide clean free power.
I have developed a way of taking free energy from the environment, day and night, using a fairly compact and practical device. We all are familiar with the energy which I am utilising, as it is gravity. With my device, I input 800 watts of electrical energy and I am able to withdraw nearly three times as much electrical power from it. Obviously, two thirds of the power output is free for the taking, and I am taking it.
The old saying is that ?the proof of the pudding is in the eating?, so I am demonstrating the practical result by driving electrical devices with a much higher power requirement, from just my 800 watts of input power. What more can I do than demonstrate clearly that what I am saying is true? Gentlemen, form your own opinion, but please base it on the factual demonstration which I am showing you.-
These are direct cut/paste quotes from your website taken five minutes ago. They are what I would call claims. Given the tests and results you yourself reported yesterday, I would say these are false claims. If you need more examples, just ask.
I am not "an oil man". I hate those who use their power to suppress truth and progress but worse, I despise charlatans and hypocrites who do the same evil they piously accuse others of.
You may feel free to insult me all you like if it makes you feel better or if you think it proves your case. I can handle it. I see you have plenty of practice...http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=202405#post202405 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=202405#post202405)
See also: http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/PanaceaUSA.htm (http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/PanaceaUSA.htm)
"The main purpose of the Panacea-USA division is to educate the youth in the United States on suppressed and alternative energies and more importantly have students construct their own devices based on Chas Campbell free power device.
The first students to build Panaceas proposed devices and the Chas Campbell energy free device will be from the Auburn City School system. The initial class lectures and class construction will be conducted by Dr. Mark Jones, an Auburn Science teacher.
Dr. Jones is also the head of Auburn's Science Olympiad program. His students have won the Alabama Science Olympiad 6 straight years. Once the first device is made, it will be presented to Dr. Steven Taylor and the Auburn University Alternative Energy Program.
After this program is completed, once a month, Dr. Jones or Dow Scoggins, former corporate technical instructor and youth motivator, will go to different Auburn City
Schools. Each school will build their own devices.
This project will be an annual event and once the new device is built, the first device will be donated to the low-income homes to help meet their energy needs."
Humbugger
Nice Try Hum,
for your records,
I already stated we published what Chas stated, which is what oyu are quoting, and presented that there is no justification for no investigation and many others
The main purpose of the Panacea-USA division is to educate the youth in the United States on suppressed and alternative energies [ http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RandDprinciples.htm]
and more importantly have students construct their own devices based on Chas Campbell free power device.
>Chas's system is critically needed to provide third world countries with clean free power and to advance the mainstream sciences curriculars. Chas's system can provide clean free power.
His Gravity wheel based on what we have seen plus ideas can still be submitted and justify that.
And still today, all those devices we have list on his page along with Chas's wheel, can you prove they don't work, you will get your chance to build , if you don't, build and verify then mate i feel you have allot of insults ahead and or are an oil man im already going to keep my eye on you.,
can you prove Chas's wheel doesnt work after you get the plans?, and that our tests on his Gen/fly wheel are not warranted after we do our tests?
if not Hum your still out of luck son
Quote from: Humbugger on September 04, 2007, 03:08:21 AM
"Exactly what is it you think we are claiming on Chas's device?"
Chas's system is critically needed to provide third world countries with clean free power and to advance the mainstream sciences curriculars. Chas's system can provide clean free power.
I have developed a way of taking free energy from the environment, day and night, using a fairly compact and practical device. We all are familiar with the energy which I am utilising, as it is gravity. With my device, I input 800 watts of electrical energy and I am able to withdraw nearly three times as much electrical power from it. Obviously, two thirds of the power output is free for the taking, and I am taking it.
The old saying is that ?the proof of the pudding is in the eating?, so I am demonstrating the practical result by driving electrical devices with a much higher power requirement, from just my 800 watts of input power. What more can I do than demonstrate clearly that what I am saying is true? Gentlemen, form your own opinion, but please base it on the factual demonstration which I am showing you.-
These are direct cut/paste quotes from your website taken five minutes ago. They are what I would call claims. Given the tests and results you yourself reported yesterday, I would say these are false claims. If you need more examples, just ask.
I am not an oil man. I hate those who use their power to suppress truth and progress. You may feel free to insult me all you like if it makes you feel better or if you think it proves your case. I can handle it.
Humbugger
That right Hum , thats what Chas stated, as i stated to you earlier we published what he stated, and set out to HELP himAnd we are there to investigate it our selfs, whats your point?
Hum, your lucky im not the mod here mate,
Ash
Quote
we have found his gravity wheel to be fine
So just to confirm.
Are you saying that Chas' gravity wheel (JUST THE TIMBER WHEEL) continually turns/rotates of it's own accord ?
If yes!....then I have no other interest in any other part of Chas' contraption other than his gravity wheel.
All this electrical talk is a wast of time at the moment.
Wasting time trying to work out the electrics in Chas' contraption is is confusing IF the timber gravity wheel is the main source of power.
Well, Ashtweth,
I believe it is a waste of time and effort to teach false beliefs and to replicate non-working devices. If we train the youth to believe that the answer to the energy problems is to be found in Bessler wheels and magical non-existent "free energy" devices, they will fail to solve the real problems in ways that provide real energy for real tasks. The thing suppressing Chas' energy device is the fact it does not function.
I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me otherwise, whether from my own tens of thousands of hours of bench work or from the emerging verified work of others. Writing up wishful deceptions and finding clever ways to yield false test results to make them appear true has been done to death. It's not the answer.
I'm sorry that my beliefs and the fact that I express them bother you so much. I suppose you can probably use your vast power to influence Stefan to ban me from the forum. That would certainly show the world something, wouldn't it!
Humbugger
Hi sevich, as i know you personally, and you actually build things to verify them ill send you the direct copy of his gravity wheel instructions the edits are still being done tonight.. We will publish them here, i already posted about his wheel.
Its a shame we have so much crap to sort through thanks to Hum, you may have seen that we stated that his wheel based on what he showed us could rotate just using gravity, the only problem is it wobbles due to it being made of un robust materials and de tunes, how ever you and others could fix this.
Plans and vid is coming
Quote from: Humbugger on September 04, 2007, 03:41:43 AM
Well, Ashtweth,
I believe it is a total waste of time and effort to teach false beliefs and to build known non-working devices. If we train the youth to believe that the answer to the energy problems is to be found in Bessler wheels and magical non-existent "free energy" devices, they will fail to solve the real problems in real ways that provide real energy for real tasks.
I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me otherwise, whether from my own tens of thousands of hours of bench work or from the emerging verified work of others. Writing up lies and finding clever ways to yield false test results to make them appear true has been done to death. It's not the answer.
I'm sorry that my beliefs and the fact that I express them bother you so much. I suppose you can probably use your power to influence Stefan to ban me from the forum. That would certainly show the world something, wouldn't it!
Humbugger
No Hum, i would moderate you not ban you, some of the stuff you say is useful, most of it is utter CRAP.
You haven't built and verified any thing so i feel you talking to your self Hum.
I still think
your attitude sucks, and i have had to edit and waste a good deal of time here proving this to you. dont expect a direct answer from me in the future,
as you have already pissed me off and made me waste time i could be editing the video for the board.Gentle men , the video wont be ready till prob 2 days now, you can thank Hum for his objective scientific approach, and trying to accuse a non profit org of not helping the whole situation.
there you Go Hum, maybe now you can think about your attitude.
"Its a shame we have so much crap to sort through thanks to Hum."
Good night Ashtweth. I am sorry you feel that way. I will not post further on this Charles Campbell matter. You are free once again to weave your tall tales of amazing machines without further burden of critical comment from me. I give up.
Good luck to you in making good your promises to the children. You will live in the world which you create. Go for what you believe in!
Humbugger
Quote from: wattsup on September 04, 2007, 01:37:11 AM
@GraViTaR
All that's happening is A and D are turning B and C. But how?
It's a gravity-torque feedback system. The ratios must be exact or it won't work. If it's off just a little, the system will lock up and not run.
The weight of D resting on the inside of A at an off center (approximately 3:30) position, turns A clockwise. The outer surface of A turns B/C counterclockwise by contacting B. C turns D clockwise again which then turns A and the system just feeds back on itself to keep turning.
The contacting surfaces should be alternating metal/rubber/metal/rubber. So A would be solid metal, inside and out. The rim of B would be rubber; the rim of C, metal; and finally, the outer surface of D would be rubber. The slight give in the rubber would give us a small margin for error in the tolerances of the ratios.
A is wide and is a split wheel. It rests on B just enough to make firm contact. B is on both sides of C and contacts both halves of the split A. C is narrow and contacts D through the split down the middle of A. D is a ring that sits freely within A and is not connected to anything. It is wide enough to rest on both halves of the split A at 3:30 and C at 8:00.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2F4waygw2.jpg&hash=555765ce17bcb9c8e80601591cbff7dd64bc8130)
@Ash: hi ash, don't care about Hum. Relax and do your work. Thanks.
@Hum: "I believe it is a total waste of time and effort" WHY THEN do you post the most stuff here??? i realy do not understand that!!! Thank you for "giving up" spamming.
thanx Ash
I'll do my best to replicate Chas' wheel.
I feel a kind of sadness in the air that this perpetual motion mystery might be finally solved at last.......... we all like to be the first ...(DAM) >:(
IMO I guess once Chas' wheel is figured out, then that will create new avenues and branching out different O/U machines using simillar principles?
who's to know.....wait and see?
The knowledge that the gravitation field of the earth is a polarized oriented gradient, and that the motions involved in the operation of a properly built wheel are non-linear with respect to that field make a positive outcome (concerning the making of any given good 'Bessler' type wheel) --- obvious. Vortexes would not be possible if this were not true. In interstellar terms as one example, think of all the places that vortexes occur, and you will find them only around gravitational fields. Specifically..only in the gradient areas. (Exception!!:or areas of powerful gradient energy, ie, electrostatic fields, etc. ie, across boundaries which have notable gradients and the function involves fluid dynamics. You then get the resultant vortex spin from the three aspect points of a given fluid field, ie, resultant of the frequential quanta aspects of the given field interactions.)
"we all like to be the first"
Yes :-\ ................... but keep going
1. maybe you will become a successful business man in that field. 8)
2. I suggest, having low energy bills will last longer than a bit honor from the anonymous internet
3. And to be precise: Bessler was the first in 18th Century! And others have done it already (i saw one with my own eyes) and:
4. gravity powered devices are only the start point. Energy densitiy of gravity powered device are relatively low (although a hydrogen-powered car could be recharged with hydrogen produced by gravity-powered devices).
@Ash and @Hum
When it rains, it pours.
OK. Both of you to your rooms.... lol
Actually, a nice spat clears the air doesn't it? Lucky guys.
@Ash
Don't go blaming Hum. He is our resident reality check and it will take lots more than that to get him off this forum.
This is the problem. When you go to do an OU investigation like on Chas' device, you have to go there with a totally objective mind-set.
If you measure voltage and amperage at the PM and the Generator. If it works, it works. And if it doesn't, it doesn't. End of story #1.
In your case, you are talking RV, pulse, now you're talking air-conditioner clutches (do you know the load it will add to the PM - ouch), and the sort. What you are not talking about is the simplest questions of all. So let me put it in the simple and direct questions.
1) Did you measure the voltage and amperage at the PM inlet?
2) If 1 is Yes. What are the values?
3) If 1 is No. Why?
4) Did you measure the voltage and amperage at Generator outlet?
5) If 4 is Yes. What are the values?
6) If 4 is No. Why?
7) If 4 is Yes. Please describe how you took your measurments.
Look, if Chas' device does not produce OU as it is, no modifications, no RV, no pulse, straight loaded, then WE NEED TO KNOW THIS, AS IT IS. End of story.
The rest of the story we can all elect to pursue or not, given the straight answers. No fluff, required. People need to know this in order to take a decision or not on replication, based on facts.
Now if Chas' device does not work as proposed and you have taken it upon yourself to do as much as possible with the RV method to help him "potentially" bring it to OU status, then that's OK. But Cripes, don't beat around the bush because this just pisses people off.
So what we need are the true blue facts, nothing else. YES or NO.
@GraViTaR
I know you are seeing it this way but here it is again.
If A and D share the same axle, and B and C share the same axle, then,
all that's happening is A and D are turning B and C.
Now if A is off center to D, then they cannot share the same axle and your picture is wrong. In this case if there is one axle for A and one axle for D, and A is off center to D, and D is required to help turn A, then at one point there will be a drag to equalize the off-center of what is used to turn A using D. This drag will stop the wheel.
@Prophmaji
It's a question of having the wheel turn and using the turning motion as leverage to lift the left side. From 9 to 10 o'clock it is important to push the ball to the right as mush as possible, but not too much to lose height at 1 o'clock. Also at 7 o'clock, the curve starts the motion rightwards before it would do so if it was straight. This advanced ball movement has to be timed in a way that its combined maximum momentum or all moving balls can be attained without creating a drop in the inertia of the wheel. The later would also then be a function of the wheel to ball weight ratio.
In my wheel design, the wheel itself was brought to a professional wheel balancing device that turns the empty wheel a 500 rpm or more to identify the imbalances. These imbalances are then corrected and re-tested until the wheel has a off balance of less than 1 gram. Then you add you other components which are perfectly balanced also. This ensures that the wheel is perfectly balanced and on the off balance of the ball shifting weight can then act upon it. Centuries ago, I don,t think there was any high level balancing in this manner and wheels were made with limited capabilities in precision placement.
Your spoke wheel is probably not balanced also. Then the tubes would have to be placed at "exactly" the identical 8 positions, and this will be difficult to do. You are better off designing the tubes with identical 90 degree holding rods to then be placed together then added to the wheel as a whole, not individually. Otherwise your balance risks being off. Once you have a perfectly balances wheel, with the tubes, you will see the true motion, or lack of motion that you could not see before because of all the interfering forces, and you can adjust accordingly, but always know that if you move one, you have to move eight.
True Perpetual Wheels are a challenge in that they use no magnetic or other assist. Although one can spend a lifetime working on this, one can spend a lifetime triming a Bonzai Tree. In both cases, you are left with a nice looking structure that you can feel proud off, working or not.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 03, 2007, 02:46:55 AM
Hi Guys, am soo sorry to be in late :-\, i had had an influx of people ringing and Inquiries, plus still have the non profit org to maintain. And my mobile phone sux!!
Thanks to Laurence, Hum and Stefan and ALL!. This has helped, and is why we need a Granted research and development center!! http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ResearchandDevelopment.htm
I will add all this into the Chas Video presentation, so we can help educate the world and faculties. We will be AT a university soon with our Water fuel cell (Ravi/Daves replication).I will be presenting allot of research in support of you guys. http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RandDprinciples.htm
Now...what an inspiring day, First i must mention Chas is true to his word and wanted independent replication and just grant support. Chas never stated he could load his devices and maintain the proper tuning. He still wants to improve and wants you all to build his perpetual Wheel and or improve his motor/Gen/flywheel system, he is still looking to get some grant endorsement to build a better system. His ideas are sound.We will prepare this for him in the video presentation.
Chas also understood, that to be a 'marketing genius' or for disclosure you have to allow INDEPENDENT REPLICATION OF THE DEVICE, then it becomes science. If you claim OU, you propose the theory and device, you then let people (if your not open sourced -under non disclosure) reproduce your results, Then it becomes science, live and learn Steorn.
Just to clarify what Stefan said, the duty cycle is important!, so is pulsing gravity devices.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/VeljkoMilkovic.htm
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/WangShumHo.htm
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=203.0;attach=9173
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,203.45.html
The RV was pulsed with a prony Break, and for 500 watts gave out 1HP
@Hum, please prony break the RV, a man as vigorous as you can find out that centrifugal force and pulsing needs more experimentation and understanding by us.
"Doug Konzen?s prony Break testing
For the third time I tested the 7.5hp Baldor motor with the series adding wiring which
gives 5.9 ohms resistance to each phase. This time I tore the motor all the way down
first, photographed the internal wiring and labels, and also oiled the bearings just a bit
with some "Kroil" brand hi-tech lubricant.
The phases are wired in Y fashion - and the motor is run in Hector's roto vertor-mode
with a 7UF run cap across lines 2 and 3. At 1650rpm no-load idle, the motor draws
.3Aac @ 120Vac with the 7UF cap.
Any amount of force from the prony brake that exceeds approx 80 ounces on the scale
with the corresponding amps input of approx 2.3Aac will bring the motor to a stop.
In this testing, and the previous too, it has been found that this particular RV'd 3ph
7.5hp Baldor AC motor only likes just a couple narrow "notches" of speed and torque
being squeezed from the shaft by the foot-long Teflon-collar prony brake.
And as before in the two earlier test-runs done this week, it was possible to keep a
consistent force of 54 ounces (3.375LBFT) on the scale, which corresponds to a
simultaneous reading of 1 Aac @ 120Vac input to the motor showing on the meters.
And also a force of 43 ounces (2.687LBFT) and the simultaneous .8 Aac @ 120Vac
input to motor on the meters was another narrow notch-of-power from the shaft to
extract.
So again, it is almost a full HP (746watts) of shaft-power from under 120 watts
electrical input, and still haven?t tried out more UF values to the run-cap in order to
fine-tune it to the load.
RESULTS:
1/20/2007
120VAc grid-power input
7.5HP Baldor motor
.81 power-factor rated showing on label (stock rating)
88% efficiency rating on label (stock rating)
7UF run-cap used in both tests
Test #1:
.8Aac X 120Vac = 96watts input
2.687 LBFT X 1550rpm / 5250 = .793HP X 746 = 591 watts output
Test #2:
1Aac X 120Vac = 120watts input
3.375 LBFT X 1500rpm /5250 = .96HP X 746 = 716watts output"
End
At first we connected two 500 watt restive load lights, and it de tuned the system exactly like Chas said it should. All this pointed to the energy being stored in the fly wheel. After two of my engineers had to leave, i had an idea to pulse the load out based on my research with panacea, mainly konesheads proney break test.
We connected two AC amp meters, on on the drive motor, and one on the alternator where the load went through. You will see on the video, Chas and i pulsed out the power tools, a drop saw and a hand saw, we also put it under load as you will see on the video.
The figure on the video shows the tools drew 10 amps when pulsed on and off in 2-3 seconds, (prob more like 2) The input remained steady on 6 amps. This was for about 5 minutes constant. We will conduct more tests and will conduct what ever you all request. We will be attaching the RV which i predict will take the input down to 3 amps/10 amps pulsed out 1-2 seconds all at 240 volts. We can also Gear it down and freq drive the fly wheel from the RV. http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=9089608413203959523
@hum
Alt is 240 volts
Now, Before any one passes judgment and or gets excited.Chas has built a perpetual wheel, the big one you see in the video has been made to spin just using gravity, using snooker balls and Chas wants you all to improve and build the system, ill be sending it to Patrick Kelly to write up.
He explains the system himself via diagram and we show you how the wheel spins, he proved the concept by using 3 balls which made the wheel continuous and should it would go onto do what he said it would if the balls were constantly cycling.
He could not build it as robust as he wanted, so it vibrates and makes the balls fall off and de tune his wheel, he has had to use very primitive materials (TIN), he needs better materials/grants etcs. You will see this is amazing on what he had to build, and you can see on the video that if the big wheel didn't wobble the balls would consistently cycle and turn the wheel!!
Guys please be patient for the video and PM wheel instructions, we have allot to edit and present, my partner had to goto Sydney for the week and is editing now, ill give you the ratio's of his motor gen flywheel system, as he wanted, we will above to wait for the perpetual wheel instructions till we finish the edits please be patient ;D.
Conclusion, more is needed to be done to assess and provide a better presentation. This will be done, on the 15th of Sep.
RV drive motor will be added to cut the Crappy 6 amp draw down to 3 amps
Duty cycle will be more vigorous for Stefan
FET IGBT pulsed circuit into a load will be constructed
Freq driven RV test will be done
On his perpetual wheel
conclusion IT WORKS!!! Chas's expertise is in Gravity wheels so far, his ideas remain plausible based on his understanding of how his system preforms, he never claimed any thing which wasn't going on.
Chas's spirit was to give this away, his heart is in the right place and he should be supported [Granted] and encouraged here are his ratio's till we get the edits done
He is also on video explaining these for you guys. Editing will be done soon
On Behalf of Panacea-bocaf and OU forum, i would personally like to thank Chas for his altruism.
More to come...
Drive motor-1430
motor speed 1430rpm pulley -2.75inches to 5.5inches
cuts the speed of the motor in half.
then 5 inch pulley
8 inch pulley
4 inch pulley
9 inch pulley
4.5 inch pulley-> ALT 3146 watts 240 volt 50 hertz.
fly wheel 72 inch thick
12 mil custom
6 lay
10-20 kilos
Guys you have to wait till the video is done to see the new set up and apply these raitos, THIS IS NOT THE OLD SET UP
This does the same as the old set up but is the simplified set up.
"Now when the drive motor has to power all the flywheels and the alternator
it has an input current of about 6 amps, which means the input power
is about 1440 Watts . (Power factor cos phi not calculated in...)
When Ash connected 2 x 500 Watts halogen bulbs this drove the flywheel
setup down in RPM and the system became unstable, so they
were only able to do this for about 10 seconds.
This seemed to be too much load on the alternator..."[a bit more detail taken from Stefan's report]
@Wattsup
I can see how you missed the few words of hard fact Ashtweth gave. It was literally buried in a lengthy tome mostly about the RV stuff. It's pretty clear he doesn't want to talk much about it and I've volunteered to shut up in this thread lest I'm blamed for all the world's problems.
I thought I'd help you locate the one tiny bit of information Ashtweth actually reported on the electrical performance with normal resistive continuous loads.
It's those sixteen words I've
underlined, bolded and put in red somewhere near the middle of his "report".
It will be extremely interesting to see whether this perfectly valid and extremely revealing test is shown on the edited video. 1440W input 1000W output induced the machine to crash in ten seconds.
If we read Stefan's report exactly as stated, then the results are even worse. Notice Stefan says that the 6A 1440W measured input was
before the 1KW load was put on. If that's indeed the case, then I wonder how much the input current increased when the 1KW load was added for those horrible ten seconds of truth. 2KW, 2500W? With increased I^2R losses plus 1KW new load...very possible.
And whether the lamps were really getting a full 1KW. If the whole machine was slowing down so bad they yanked the loads after ten seconds, it's quite likely the output voltage was drooping as well. We may never find out the actual numbers. If he got them, it seems like he has not told them yet!
Humbugger Over and Out
Call me distrustful, but why didn't a simple "total power in/total power out" kind of measuring was taken instead of having to deal with esoteric methods? ???
Quote from: wattsup on September 04, 2007, 11:40:19 AM
@GraViTaR
I know you are seeing it this way but here it is again.
If A and D share the same axle, and B and C share the same axle, then,
all that's happening is A and D are turning B and C.
Now if A is off center to D, then they cannot share the same axle and your picture is wrong. In this case if there is one axle for A and one axle for D, and A is off center to D, and D is required to help turn A, then at one point there will be a drag to equalize the off-center of what is used to turn A using D. This drag will stop the wheel.
I thought the description I wrote explained it pretty well. I can only assume that either you didn't read the description, or you just don't understand it.
There is nothing wrong in my picture. The only way there would be drag is if all of the wheels are not the exact sizes necessary to turn in perfect unison.
D is a ring and has no axle. It sits freely within A. The weight of D, freely resting on one side of A keeps A out of balance and constantly turning clockwise. Do you understand now?
What I need are the exact ratios for all the wheels; taking into consideration the fact that A contacts D on the inside surface and B on the outside surface. This means that the thickness of A must be calculated into the ratios.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2F4waygw2.jpg&hash=555765ce17bcb9c8e80601591cbff7dd64bc8130)
Quote from: GraViTaR on September 04, 2007, 03:45:31 PM
I thought the description I wrote explained it pretty well. I can only assume that either you didn't read the description, or you just don't understand it.
There is nothing wrong in my picture. The only way there would be drag is if all of the wheels are not the exact sizes necessary to turn in perfect unison.
D is a ring and has no axle. It sits freely within A. The weight of D, freely resting on one side of A keeps A out of balance and constantly turning clockwise. Do you understand now?
What I need are the exact ratios for all the wheels; taking into consideration the fact that A contacts D on the inside surface and B on the outside surface. This means that the thickness of A must be calculated into the ratios.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2F4waygw2.jpg&hash=555765ce17bcb9c8e80601591cbff7dd64bc8130)
This setup cannot work. You rely on D to turn A, but D will not turn A. The only way D could turn A is if it contacts A on one side and thereby pulls it down. This can certainly be set up, but it will be a very short experiment, and D will quickly fall to the bottom of A and rest there.
What is happening in your drawing is D is balanced on C and A, and therefore it is not inclined to turn anything, as it is not causing anything to be off balance. Try it.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 04, 2007, 04:39:35 PM
This setup cannot work. You rely on D to turn A, but D will not turn A. The only way D could turn A is if it contacts A on one side and thereby pulls it down. This can certainly be set up, but it will be a very short experiment, and D will quickly fall to the bottom of A and rest there.
What is happening in your drawing is D is balanced on C and A, and therefore it is not inclined to turn anything, as it is not causing anything to be off balance. Try it.
I would agree, that this setup will not work,
cause they are coupled fixed.
But try to couple all the wheels via springs only, so one wheel can get
faster while the spring between it can wind up and wind down
after it again.
This could be the only way you could MAYBE get something to work..
So never couple these things with fixed connections...
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 04, 2007, 04:39:35 PM
Quote from: GraViTaR on September 04, 2007, 03:45:31 PM
I thought the description I wrote explained it pretty well. I can only assume that either you didn't read the description, or you just don't understand it.
There is nothing wrong in my picture. The only way there would be drag is if all of the wheels are not the exact sizes necessary to turn in perfect unison.
D is a ring and has no axle. It sits freely within A. The weight of D, freely resting on one side of A keeps A out of balance and constantly turning clockwise. Do you understand now?
What I need are the exact ratios for all the wheels; taking into consideration the fact that A contacts D on the inside surface and B on the outside surface. This means that the thickness of A must be calculated into the ratios.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2F4waygw2.jpg&hash=555765ce17bcb9c8e80601591cbff7dd64bc8130)
This setup cannot work. You rely on D to turn A, but D will not turn A. The only way D could turn A is if it contacts A on one side and thereby pulls it down. This can certainly be set up, but it will be a very short experiment, and D will quickly fall to the bottom of A and rest there.
What is happening in your drawing is D is balanced on C and A, and therefore it is not inclined to turn anything, as it is not causing anything to be off balance. Try it.
Yes, I am very willing to try it.
Is there anyone here who is good at math who can tell me what size all the wheels have to be so that they will turn in unison?
Once you give it a nudge, it will keep turning by itself as long as all the wheels are the right size.
Does anyone here know math?
Just try it first in WM2D,
there is a free version which can not save,
but Ash posted a source, where you also could get a full version ! :D
Quote from: Humbugger on September 04, 2007, 04:00:05 AM
"Its a shame we have so much crap to sort through thanks to Hum."
Good night Ashtweth. I am sorry you feel that way. I will not post further on this Charles Campbell matter. You are free once again to weave your tall tales of amazing machines without further burden of critical comment from me. I give up.
Good luck to you in making good your promises to the children. You will live in the world which you create. Go for what you believe in! Humbugger
Okay to make you and others happy, i have
UPDATED Chas's page based on our findings, and moved him to registered technology,http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RegisteredTech.htm
(an R and D engineer who ideas remain valid), and will further UPDATE his page after our investigation on the 15th, i still remain confident that his gravity ideas are sound, and would not hesitate to endorse his gravity wheel ideas in the R and D lab.
I have also UPDATED the page with the figures that were quoted by him, and will be looking forward to trying other ideas on his system, and still helping him .
He still has the heart of an altruist.
The devices listed here are presented as 'ready to go'
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RandDprinciples.htm
the web site will be uploaded soon.
And i still stand by our conclusion saying
MORE investigation is needed before we close the book Hum, and i still think some of your 'inquiries' some times GEL like your working for the oil companies.And attitude of closing the book on him is not sound.
We will make a video presentation with all the themes of how investigation and verifiable observation is needed on Laurence's and Milkovics device, and will add in Chas's when his systems results when done.
Quote from: Iosh on September 04, 2007, 12:52:11 PM
Call me distrustful, but why didn't a simple "total power in/total power out" kind of measuring was taken instead of having to deal with esoteric methods? ???
losh, just list what method you would want us to test on the 15th and we will do it, Im sure Stefan will out line what proper duty cycle method by pulsing can be done.
We are here to preform the tests, so don't hesitate to ask.
Quote from: wattsup on September 04, 2007, 10:15:21 AM
@Ash and @Hum
When it rains, it pours.
OK. Both of you to your rooms.... lol
Actually, a nice spat clears the air doesn't it? Lucky guys.
@Ash
Don't go blaming Hum. He is our resident reality check and it will take lots more than that to get him off this forum.
This is the problem. When you go to do an OU investigation like on Chas' device, you have to go there with a totally objective mind-set.
If you measure voltage and amperage at the PM and the Generator. If it works, it works. And if it doesn't, it doesn't. End of story #1.
In your case, you are talking RV, pulse, now you're talking air-conditioner clutches (do you know the load it will add to the PM - ouch), and the sort. What you are not talking about is the simplest questions of all. So let me put it in the simple and direct questions.
1) Did you measure the voltage and amperage at the PM inlet?
2) If 1 is Yes. What are the values?
3) If 1 is No. Why?
4) Did you measure the voltage and amperage at Generator outlet?
5) If 4 is Yes. What are the values?
6) If 4 is No. Why?
7) If 4 is Yes. Please describe how you took your measurments.
Look, if Chas' device does not produce OU as it is, no modifications, no RV, no pulse, straight loaded, then WE NEED TO KNOW THIS, AS IT IS. End of story.
The rest of the story we can all elect to pursue or not, given the straight answers. No fluff, required. People need to know this in order to take a decision or not on replication, based on facts.
Now if Chas' device does not work as proposed and you have taken it upon yourself to do as much as possible with the RV method to help him "potentially" bring it to OU status, then that's OK. But Cripes, don't beat around the bush because this just pisses people off.
So what we need are the true blue facts, nothing else. YES or NO.
Watts, i posted the conclusion based on our opinion, and didn't beat around the bush.
Yes we used Amp meters from the Grid and monitored the voltage.
6 amps 240 volts 50 hertz -PM
we pulsed the drop saw and hand saw out in 2-3 seconds into a bit of wood.
10 amps 240 volts 50 hertz- Alt
peaked at 11 amps
As stefan points out , you need a better duty cycle to go COP+1, and we will be testing that on the 15th. I stated to Stefan on the phone
i feel its a COP device still at an R and D stage,
But his gravity wheel is not based on what we were shown -
but YOU be the judge when you get the instruction and after you build it.The globes would never could show his 'OU' idea, he always stated they de tune the system
pointing to the energy being stored in the flywheel as stated in the report.
So in the words of not beating around the bush.
As is, motor/gen/fly wheel set up not OU in the configuration he has
more investigation is needed to access the potential in our opinion based on my R and D into Gravity machines and the expertise of the engineers i am talking to ATM, i find that we can try other configs to EVALUATE the potential further and 'close the book'.
BUT
His gravity wheel looks as the only thing stopping it from moving continuous is the materials he used,
Instructions for all are nearly ready.
Another R and D idea given to me By an engineer on the board.
"Hi Ash,
So what we effectively have is a mechanical capacitor!!!
I kind of understood that when he said any ratios would be OK. Well instead of this mechanical setup you can use Ultra capacitors to do the same job!! Connect the RV to a generator and store the excess generation on to an ultra cap and this can be used when ever there's a sudden additional demand!!
Have you seen this company called Eestor...theyve developed an ultra capacitor which works as a battery and they call it a battery"EEStor unit could run on the equivalent of 45 cents per gallon, driving 500 miles on $9 worth of electricity after just five minutes to charge."
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/09/21/eestor-ceramic-electric-motor/
May be we could use an RV'd Chas setup and charge these sort of batteries and run cars!! Very feasible idea as the charge duration is short! I think RV-Chas system would be more feasible to be used for uneven loads of short duration rather than continuous loading...I think it will be COP>1 when used this way! "-End
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 04, 2007, 09:13:47 PM
As is, motor/gen/fly wheel set up not OU in the configuration he has
more investigation is needed to access the potential in our opinion based on my R and D into Gravity machines and the expertise of the engineers i am talking to ATM, i find that we can try other configs to EVALUATE the potential further and 'close the book'.
BUT
His gravity wheel looks as the only thing stopping it from moving continuous is the materials he used,
Instructions for all are nearly ready.
Well that really is too bad. I was hoping he had something. But if the flywheel does not work as claimed, why do you have any faith in the gravity wheel? The "materials" excuse is really setting off a red flag. So many people have used that one.
that sounds like the big wheel has no function. i don't think, this makes sence. there is something missing in the proof. but we will see...
allot of people seem content to close the book before we try the final test on his flywheel set up..
Every one is an individual, Chas's situation is really what i say as i examined the wheel. And saw it turning and witnessed it stopping ONLY as a result of it wobbling and causing the balls to fall off their rollers, so i would be patient and wait for the video and make up your own mind.
Chas showed us you will see on the video that balls going in with out wobbling makes the wheel keep turning!
it is made of tin, and wood, so not robust, you can improve it as he has disclosed full instructions on how to do it, i expect the editing to be finished tomorrow.
how about drawing a pic .. or photo......or somthing basic ?... ;)
Chas provided a drawing of how the wheel concept works, and also we have done a close up of the wheel and its components all is on the video, Chas himself is on camera explaining it please be patient whilst we edit the footage for the board thanks
Quote from: GraViTaR on September 04, 2007, 05:22:50 PM
I thought the description I wrote explained it pretty well. I can only assume that either you didn't read the description, or you just don't understand it.
There is nothing wrong in my picture. The only way there would be drag is if all of the wheels are not the exact sizes necessary to turn in perfect unison.
D is a ring and has no axle. It sits freely within A. The weight of D, freely resting on one side of A keeps A out of balance and constantly turning clockwise. Do you understand now?
What I need are the exact ratios for all the wheels; taking into consideration the fact that A contacts D on the inside surface and B on the outside surface. This means that the thickness of A must be calculated into the ratios.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2F4waygw2.jpg&hash=555765ce17bcb9c8e80601591cbff7dd64bc8130)
Yes, I am very willing to try it.
Is there anyone here who is good at math who can tell me what size all the wheels have to be so that they will turn in unison?
Does anyone here know math?
[/quote]
@Gravitar
Sorry but i dont know to much about maths,to make it work by calculation.
I whish so much,that your konstruction enables us. to use Gravity as a endless driving Force.
But if i turn the screen to about 30 to 45 degrees to the right,then it seems,that the Wheel D rests in a balanced position,and no force ist drifing it forward.
Helmut
"And i still stand by our conclusion saying MORE investigation is needed before we close the book Hum, and i still think some of your 'inquiries' some times GEL like your working for the oil companies.And attitude of closing the book on him is not sound."
@Ashtweth Nihilist
I voluntarily dropped out of further posts on this thread because you whiningly blamed me for causing big delays in your important work by bringing up obvious technical concerns and ethical issues regarding long-standing and clearly false published claims of excess energy production. Why are you still addressing me in your posts if you do not wish to continue a discourse?
I think it is downright sleazy of you to continue publicly accusing me of working for big oil, which is entirely false and has no basis whatsoever and is a weak low-life attempt at maliciously discrediting my completely objective, technically correct and clearly rational observations.
You may feel free to insult me all you like if it makes you feel better or if you think it helps to prove your case. I can handle it. I'm tough. I see you have plenty of practice at publicly insulting innocent people who simply ask you to clarify your statements and stay on subject:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=202405#post202405
I am a retired electronics equipment designer and inventor with 40 years of successful commercial and industrial product releases and two granted US patents. I have no interest in helping to suppress anything that works as advertised. I do rather enjoy blasting away at dodgey fakery and lies, though!
Humbugger
P.S. It is good and I commend you if you have removed a few of the false claims of free energy from your website. You still have some more cleanup work to do there, I'd say:
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/PanaceaUSA.htm (as of five minutes ago)
"The main purpose of the Panacea-USA division is to educate the youth in the United States on suppressed and alternative energies and more importantly have students construct their own devices based on Chas Campbell free power device.
The first students to build Panaceas proposed devices and the Chas Campbell energy free device will be from the Auburn City School system. The initial class lectures and class construction will be conducted by Dr. Mark Jones, an Auburn Science teacher.
Dr. Jones is also the head of Auburn's Science Olympiad program. His students have won the Alabama Science Olympiad 6 straight years. Once the first device is made, it will be presented to Dr. Steven Taylor and the Auburn University Alternative Energy Program.
After this program is completed, once a month, Dr. Jones or Dow Scoggins, former corporate technical instructor and youth motivator, will go to different Auburn City
Schools. Each school will build their own devices.
This project will be an annual event and once the new device is built, the first device will be donated to the low-income homes to help meet their energy needs."
It sure seems like you are building huge castles on foundations of shifting sand. Noble intentions; horrible strategy. Here's a hint: Test objectively before you make public claims and big plans, not afterward.
Hum i had no idea you were disabled. However all your comments are not always squeaky clean, and you did make negative statements and and tried to close the book on his device and tell every one to move on despite us not having even disclosed fully his gravity wheel and or done our 2nd duty cycle measurment. So My mind isn't made up where your coming from sorry, plus i have found the same attitude with your 'contributions' when talking about another device.
Your attitude in my opinion could be better, i did how ever find some objective advice form you and have addressed this on the page/claims so you don't have any thing more to complain about now.
Yes any more delaying will earn you allot of flack. You have nothing more to complain now so i suggest you keep it that way thanks.
PS, the updated site based on our investigation of the device isn't posted yet.You not looking at the uploaded site yet Hum. Plus i don't know who posted that info on that link of insults, you certainly have the wrong person, my name is not ashtweth dasin any more i dont insult people for no reason, so Hum i would stick to the topic at hand and stop posting irrelevant content.
G'day Ashtweth and all,
When do you think we can have a look at what you have found in Brisbane? At least you are pleased with the way things have turned out, the way you talk. I am happy for you.
Hans von Lieven
Hi Mate, shouldn't be much longer i spoke to the person doing the edits on the phone , we expect it uploaded to google video tomorrow or the next day, sorry for the delay guys.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 05, 2007, 05:25:27 AM
Plus i don't know who posted that info on that link of insults, you certainly have the wrong person, my name is not ashtweth dasin, so Hum i would stick to the topic at hand and stop posting irrelevant content.
.
The relevancy of the linked info is to show that you have a history of viciously insulting innocent people on forums, as you have attempted to do to me by suggesting that I'm a paid disinformation agent of big oil. The further relevant issue is now that you are an outright liar in your denial that you are one and the same poster as Ashtweth Dasien. Here is the proof of my statement by way of yet another posting of yours:
"grettings to you all, hello my name is ashtweth dasien, first i am great full that sentinet beings of your aware nature are here posting your thoughts and insights, for alternative/overunity/free energy we are able to do it, if not straight away ..able to work together in solidarity to tweak the path for which we can gain further progress... I plan to start an alt energy company to save the planet, eventually being able to provide an overunity device FREE for all, this is my ever changing plan of action, first to register the company, called panacea, as a charity, and non profit, hence so you can get anon donations and don?t have to pay tax."http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2156&highlight=&sid=2f298bca8b1721824ac2b337d612859a#2156 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2156&highlight=&sid=2f298bca8b1721824ac2b337d612859a#2156)
Your more recent posts in the Charles Campell thread over at Besslerwheel.com also demonstrate that you have a bad habit of insulting, cursing and threatening bodily harm to other members. To quote a post from Scot, the moderator over there, as he gave you [known as Epistemologicide] the last warning:
"
So far Epi you have been abusive, obscene, vulgar, hateful, and threatening. And this is not the first time. Epi, I am hereby warning you to take a more civil tone immediately. You will be banned from the forum on your next infraction."You are hoisting yourself by your own petard, only digging yourself in deeper with further lies. You are doing this to yourself, mate! I'm only trying to keep you honest, which is proving quite impossible!
Humbugger
Reader please note that after this proof was published, Ashtweth went back and edited the quote at the top of this page to say that he is not Ashtweth Dasien
any more! Ahhh...that explains it! I have the wrong person because he has left that name behind!
I don't necessarily agree with Hum's tact, though I'm a bit rough myself, but he makes very valid points. IMO, Chad tried like many of us but has not found the answer. It's as we originally thought, kinetic storage. I believe we need to not waste our few precious resources trying convince ourselves that a non-viable system works and it is time to move on.
I'll be having a county fair display with a few of what I believe to be true systems that are not available to the public....simply a public education display. This is what I'll have so far:
Tilly video
TPU video
Motorcycle running on water video
RV that looks like o/u but isn't (physical unit on display)
Rich
Quote from: oouthere on September 05, 2007, 08:18:52 AM
I don't necessarily agree with Hum's tact, though I'm a bit rough myself, but he makes very valid points. IMO, Chad tried like many of us but has not found the answer. It's as we originally thought, kinetic storage. I believe we need to not waste our few precious resources trying convince ourselves that a non-viable system works and it is time to move on.
I'll be having a county fair display with a few of what I believe to be true systems that are not available to the public....simply a public education display. This is what I'll have so far:
Tilly video
TPU video
Motorcycle running on water video
RV that looks like o/u but isn't (physical unit on display)
Rich
Dear Rich,
Do not lose heart. You have not seen and played with Cosmic Energy Machines yet. The Chas Campbell videos will be out shortly. One is a Gravity Wheel. The other is the Electricity Magnifier.
Tsing Hua University in China has been working on an Electricity Magnifier since 1996. It can magnify input AC power 30 times. The device uses cylinders instead of wheels.
The Bessel wheel was built in the 17th century. We can definitely build and improve the Chas Campbell gravity wheel now. See:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg47621.html#msg47621
I am confident that I can help to make both the Chas Campbell devices more successful. (Knowledge of working devices will help.)
Lawrence Tseung
Chas Campbell videos Leads Out renewed energy and encouragement for the Cosmic Energy Developers. They must not lose heart.
G'day all,
Quote from: ltseung888 on September 05, 2007, 08:35:10 AM
Tsing Hua University in China has been working on an Electricity Magnifier since 1996. It can magnify input AC power 30 times. The device uses cylinders instead of wheels.
If they have this technology in China why are they spending millions of dollars buying wind turbine technology from Australia. You talk like you have been with the fairies too long.
Hans von Lieven
Hi Humbugger,
please stop to harrass Ashtweth !
The book is not closed, as we even did not see yet the videos.
I am very interested to see the videos first and then do my own
analysis of what was going on there.
Also I am interested, how it was measured before, so that
it was featured on TV.
Also I am very interested to see the other device,
the big Bessler like gravity wheel.
Thanks for your understanding and patience.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 05, 2007, 09:36:12 AM
Hi Humbugger,
please stop to harrass Ashtweth !
The book is not closed, as we even did not see yet the videos.
I am very interested to see the videos first and then do my own
analysis of what was going on there.
Also I am interested, how it was measured before, so that
it was featured on TV.
Also I am very interested to see the other device,
the big Bessler like gravity wheel.
Thanks for your understanding and patience.
Regards, Stefan.
I will do as you request. Please ask Ashtweth to refrain from making dirty rotten insinuations about me if you would be so kind.
Humbugger
Yes, please everybody slow down with your arguments,
until we have seen the videos.
Then everybody can make up his mind and post how own analysis.
Many thanks for the patience and understanding.
I agree, thanks Stefan.
People who are interested in evaluating the device and requesting test data should post here, skepticism,arguments, insults what ever should be reserved for private messages.
Rich, i would wait till you see all the data, you cannot make an evaluation based on what we have posted so far, you have to wait to see all the videos, and Chas's instructions on his Wheel. [i dont think you will be disappointed with his wheel]
Thanks for the early input Lawrence and that explanation, we are working now to include an educational video including Milcovics and your data into the presentation with chas's device and going to present it to some faculties, public and also in a panacea presentation.
Chas tells me he is working on his Big wheel now, and attempting to attach magnets and a stationary coil. But will have more details on that on the 15th. After the video you guys are more then welcome to suggest what he does to stabilize his wheel so he can try it for you, save you guys building it to get a proof of principle
Guys i have to check today, as far as i know the videos should be uploaded to night thanks for the patience.
---------------------
PS @Hum, i sent you a PM, read the edits-my name is not ashtweth dasin any more and i dont insult people for no reason, just to clarify what i meant to say
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 05, 2007, 09:26:26 AM
G'day all,
Quote from: ltseung888 on September 05, 2007, 08:35:10 AM
Tsing Hua University in China has been working on an Electricity Magnifier since 1996. It can magnify input AC power 30 times. The device uses cylinders instead of wheels.
If they have this technology in China why are they spending millions of dollars buying wind turbine technology from Australia. You talk like you have been with the fairies too long.
Hans von Lieven
Hi mate, would that possibly have some thing to do with the political and economic conditions?, i mean, seems to me that they "status quo' will use renewable energy just not OU technology, as it comes down to interfering with the world banks and oil companies.
Hasn't, Laurence had his technology since 2004? hasn't the EBM had a license since 2000 [Canada]?
Steven Ryan was on New Zealand 60 minutes 2 years ago, he had a fully function Water fuel cell on his motor bike, now he is going down Hybrid, not to mention ALL these guys have had interference,
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EnergySuppression.htm
A little bit to go on our presentation, getting the web site professionally done, our water fuel cell , and our RV neon switcher will be used with this presentation [http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ResearchandDevelopment.htm]
In order to attract grants to get a center where these systems can be educated and have a home, plus get vigorous testing so we don't have to doubt and wonder any more, not to mention create social reform as the public will know why the center is there and what goes on there.
There is allot of ozzies here like you and me into FE who are willing to help get it off the ground Stefan supports these [panacea] efforts, and we have myriad of guys form other forums pushing for this direction i think we all need to consolidate and move from A to B.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 05, 2007, 09:36:12 AM
Hi Humbugger,
please stop to harrass Ashtweth !
The book is not closed, as we even did not see yet the videos.
I am very interested to see the videos first and then do my own
analysis of what was going on there.
Also I am interested, how it was measured before, so that
it was featured on TV.
Also I am very interested to see the other device,
the big Bessler like gravity wheel.
Thanks for your understanding and patience.
Regards, Stefan.
HI Stefan, okay it was measured with the 'pulse' of the drop saw and drills but also had a light!
he had many more flywheels on this set up, i can get all the details, perhaps his TV set up is better or more efficient, or he had it tuned better Looks like its a mechanical flywheel arrqangment there, but hwo is to say that pulsing the out put wont make it very efficient, untill we test your duty cycle.
@Ashtweth Nihilist
During the ten seconds of testing you did with steady resistive halogen lamp loads, please report what the input power and output power measurements were and how they were taken. Thank you.
Humbugger
Hum, the resistive load lights/ALT were placed in a watt hour meter, and the induction motor was placed in a watt hour meter.
Upon 1000+ watts of load went through the ALT which slowed down the flywheel and over strained the PM, which read over 1000+ watts. The exact figure was not recorded sorry as we knew that it was under a COP of 1. (this was in line with what chas said would happen)
Now a normal person with your conventional engineering would then walk out the door, how ever we are going to try a pulse circuit on the ALT and many others before WE make up OUR mind.
ONE of the pulse circuits is attached
"The exact figure was not recorded sorry as we knew that it was under a COP of 1."
The above statement shows clearly that you simply ignore and bury any test result that does not fit with your hopes.
Humbugger
No it doesn't it an answer to a direct question you asked, i told you what happened it went under a COP of 1 when we loaded the resistive lights as Chas said it would. [Pro longed loading reflects back to the prime mover]
You wonder why people (im not the only one BTW) look upon you as suspicious, and where your coming from, unless you like to delay the board Hum, i would stick to direct questions
Okay...direct questions only then:
You said "Hum, the resistive load lights/ALT were placed in a watt hour meter, and the induction motor was placed in a watt hour meter."
Using these watthour meters, what was the cumulative energy input and output during your pulsed testing with the drills, hacksaws and whatever other loads you pulsed?
Humbugger
We could not use watt hour meters on that test as two of the helping engineers had to leave as stated in earlier posts.
FYI
what we did use on the the test was for 5 mins with ACA amp meters in both the prime mover and the ALT, and the load pulsed for 2-3 seconds. Each time going 10 amps at a 6 amps input, the flywheel did not slow down. ALT/PM at 240 volts, i PREDICT that the input can be put down to 3ACA with the RV, and the caps tuned to the pulsed load, So i expect we can pulse out at 1-2 seconds on 3ACA and 10ACA out.
Stefan will no doubt give us a duty cycle test to do, or any body for that matter feel free.
I dont expect it to go over a COP of +1, but the RV has never disappointed me so far.
I am still going to try the the right pulsed Freq and extraction circuit, even if our tests are negative on the 15th.
WE will be re doing the test you mention with those watt hour meters on the 15th
We will be doing the same test and also doing the same test with the RV on the watt hour meters.
WE will have your answer and video it.
Plus we will be using it as an ongoing R and D tool with the pulsed extraction circuits.
The watt hour meters should show us a duty cycle.
Hi Ash,
would be interesting to see,
if when you change the duty cycle to maybe:
80 % ontime and 20 % offtime of the output,
if then the input with the RV driver motor will
also increase versus the 50:50 duty cycle
or also with the current drive motor..
If you could have raised the duty cycle to 80on : 20off
on the current driver motor with no increase in input amps
you would already be overunity as:
240 Volts x 10 amps x 0.8 = 1920 Watts
versus 1440 Watts of input.
Okay, you would have to check for power factor cos phi surely
in this setup, but if you use pure resistive loads, this should play no
big role...
So if you can pulse 4 seconds on and 1 second off you already
have a dutycycle of 80:20.
Hope this helps.
Now looking forward to see your videos.
Many thanks again for bringing this all forward.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for the laymens way to do it, thats easy for us to under stand, one thing we will need to find a load that has 10 Amps consistent for 4 seconds, as the Drop saw and hand saw we used cutting a piece of wood only peaks at 10ACA start up for 2-3 seconds.it then went down when cutting (de tunes after 4+ seconds), still at a 6 amp input. I know 1000 watts of a resistive load could be used, will see try it and film it for the board.
Hi Ash,
yes, you really need to use ohmic load resistors...
no bulbs and no saws or motors...
Try to get a real constant ohmic load resistor that can stand
at least 2000 Watts at 240 Volts.
that would be around 10 Amps at 240 Volts, so you need to get a
R= Voltage / current = 240 Volts / 10 amps= 24 Ohm resistor.
Okay, maybe you find an existing 25 Ohm resistor that will
also work.
Try to get one, which does not change in resistance when heated...!
This is important, so you can?t use incandescent bulbs, as they
change in resistance between cold and hot filaments...
Looking forward to see your pulse measurements.
You can also use a higher pulse frequency
than 1 / 4sec_on + 1sec_off = 1/5= 0.2 Hz which I proposed,
e.g. 10 Hz
with a duty cycle of 80:20, but then the flywheels
could probably not deliver this fast the inertia energy you
probably tap with this design, when at all...
Looking forward to your first videos.
When will they be online ?
Regards, Stefan.
Ash,
Excuse my impatience... but whats the hold up on the video?
I think its very important to get this out asap so people can start building replications.
I mean, come on man, ... two hours edit takes 4 days?
Hi Stefan and Zero
I have access to a work shop which has a fixed resistor box, it very professional so although we lack our research and development center with facilities needed to evaluate all alleged OU devices, we can still find the time to 'improvise' ill look into the fixed resistors you suggest now.Stefan sorry i cannot tell when he will have them done, he assured me today or tonight.
@zero, be patient I'm not editing the video and don't have it and there is allot of edits to put a comprehensive instruction together, if you can read, the person with the video had to go to another state and speak at an alt energy conference, he does not even have internet access, i wont be answering any more of these posts, we are doing what we can ATM i expect them done by him at the latest tomorrow but cannot promise any thing.
Hi Ash,
Dont forget I am available to assist. At this stage I feel a video is not all that important , rather than accurate testing. I feel Hum had quiet a few valid points. It is a simple process of measuring power in and power out. How we load it up doesnt really matter, so long as it can be sustained.
I was wondering the device that was featured on the news if that could be run again.
My honest opinion at this stage is that it is at best a flywheel storage device. I do hope you prove me wrong , but unless it is tested in a proper way ..I.E rather than designing the test to match the data, you should do a static test.
I like Chas's spirit and I am sure everyone is appreciating your efforts.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
Hi Mark, Thank you very much for the input and offer we may need you in the future with his gravity wheel.
The video we are referring to is of his Gravity wheel not the motor/gen/flywheel
I feel the only valid points were Stefans duty cycle and ohmic resistors test.
Stefan has always a neutral vibe in him and has perfect PR skills, and does a great job to moderate these forums.
Yes all signs point to this simplified version being a stored flywheel/mechanical capacitor design, not sure if his TV set up was more efficient it certainly had more flywheels on it, but it didn't look like he pulsed out his loads longer the we didn't on his one flywheel set up.
Yeah Chas's Open sourced spirit needs to be nurtured, and he is still not with out valid ideas, his Gravity wheel is far more impressive IMO, who knows what applications we can find in his motor fly wheel, the final tests can close the book on it for some but we will endeavor to work with him and use his system as an R and D tool.
EDIT
email just in, video has been edited just needs an upload now.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 07, 2007, 01:32:53 AM
Hi Mark, Thank you very much for the input and offer we may need you in the future with his gravity wheel.
The video we are referring to is of his Gravity wheel not the motor/gen/flywheel
I feel the only valid points were Stefans duty cycle and ohmic resistors test.
Stefan has always a neutral vibe in him and has perfect PR skills, and does a great job to moderate these forums.
Yes all signs point to this simplified version being a stored flywheel/mechanical capacitor design, not sure if his TV set up was more efficient it certainly had more flywheels on it, but it didn't look like he pulsed out his loads longer the we didn't on his one flywheel set up.
Yeah Chas's Open sourced spirit needs to be nurtured, and he is still not with out valid ideas, his Gravity wheel is far more impressive IMO, who knows what applications we can find in his motor fly wheel, the final tests can close the book on it for some but we will endeavor to work with him and use his system as an R and D tool.
EDIT
email just in, video has been edited just needs an upload now.
So am I understanding now that there will be no video published on the testing you just did on his electrical device after all this? That would be a total three-strikes cop-out! Already you failed to give us any energy measurement results for either the steady loads or the pulsed loads and now no video? Jeeezzzz! This is what you call scientific research? Unbelievable!
There were those of us, and I think Stefan was included, who were very intersted in observing the dynamic operation of the machine as the lamp loads bogged it down and as the pulsed motor loads seemed not to, according to your reports. I don't need any slick time-consuming video edits or any of that PR stuff. I'd like just to see what happened there and what the machine did under various conditions. I thought that was what you were supposed to be doing! That's what you promised!
Humbugger
hopefully it wont take days to upload the video(s) here? ;)
we will see just how much open source this video really is...
peace
@humWe can if you want
But i feel it is best we make the video with the pulse test on the 15th, with the vigorous testing Stefan recommends the old one will just show you a non COP duty cycle with an inefficient drive motor.
The test on the 15th wil have the old motor and RV under Stefan's recommendations.
after the gravity wheel one we will post the Chas description of how to reproduce his flywheel set up.
@FE
Chas is completely open sourced in both videos of his gravity wheel and motor /gen flywheel
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 07, 2007, 03:20:26 AM
@humWe can if you want
But i feel it is best we make the video with the pulse test on the 15th, with the vigorous testing Stefan recommends the old one will just show you a non COP duty cycle with an inefficient drive motor.
The test on the 15th wil have the old motor and RV under Stefan's recommendations.
after the gravity wheel one we will post the Chas description of how to reproduce his flywheel set up.
@FE
Chas is completely open sourced in both videos of his gravity wheel and motor /gen flywheel
Yes. I want. As I said...skip all the fancy editing and PR. Show us what you purported to be going there for. At least if we can't know the energy measurements, we can see and hopefully hear the dynamics under various loads. We're talking about maybe 60 to 120 seconds of meaningful video footage that we have all been waiting weeks to see. I hope there is some good footage that is not obscured audio-wise. Some of us are wanting to study these claimed OU machines as scientists! We really don't care about fancy editing or presentation nuances. At least I don't!
Stefan? Anyone? Am I all alone in wanting to see what we've been promised?
Quote?just let is wait, until we see the video Ash and his partner did at Chas?s home.
Then we can see in detail, what was there.
As Chas has said before, with his flywheel device he is trying to exract
some kind of inertia energy via pulse-loading the flywheels via the output alternator..
Let us just wait and see, what Ash recorded there.?
?The book is not closed, as we even did not see yet the videos.
I am very interested to see the videos first and then do my own
analysis of what was going on there.
Also I am interested, how it was measured before, so that
it was featured on TV.?
?Yes, please everybody slow down with your arguments,
until we have seen the videos.
Then everybody can make up his mind and post how own analysis.
Many thanks for the patience and understanding?
are the videos going to be posted here only or youtube or both? or other sources?
what is the file sizes?
when are you going to post?
@ hum The videos dont have any PR stuff in it, we never stated they would, you old mate can enjoy a back seat and any of your request and or advice is now assholed from myself PERSONALLY.
you have caused enough delays here, so mate , you can enjoy talking to your self form now.
@FE
just got sent the link, its on a private server with bandwidth limitations, its 127 meg, am uploading to google video now.
So much for the Charles Campbell free energy machine movie, folks! This is just too sad.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 07, 2007, 03:43:00 AM
@ hum The videos dont have any PR stuff in it, we never stated they would, you old mate can enjoy a back seat and any of your request and or advice is now assholed from myself PERSONALLY.
you have caused enough delays here, so mate , you can enjoy talking to your self form now.
@FE
just got sent the link, its on a private server with bandwidth limitations, its 127 meg, am uploading to google video now.
Why so pissed, Ashtweth? All I have asked for is a tiny piece of two or three minutes of raw video which you have made a huge deal of promising everyone for months now. Just because the testing didn't show you what you wanted to see is no reason to suppress and hide it from the rest of us.
Come on, man, set aside your promoter hat for a moment and try to be a scientist!
Humbugger
I'm concerned that much time has slipped by thereby giving "government / big oil" forces their chance to meddle in Chas / Ash going public
The damage might have already been done
Many have said that any working free energy machine must and should be unveiled and made public ASAP...........how does that compare with this topics 24 pages and continuing???
Hi Servich, mate i dont let arm chair enthusiast or oil men or any one interfere with my logistics
I have just been watching the video and Google video has shit it self twice
im using mega upload right now and have 30 mins left.
video reveals all, and has some very usefull info for GRAVITY wheel builders like your self wont be long now
Hi guys enjoy more to come
Blame the MIB's or google for the delays
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ISTNVTVQ
Hi Ashtweth,
I'm downloading the AVI now. I will rencode as a wmv to a more manageable filesize if that's OK. Also a good idea if you want to distribute this, would be to setup a torrent for it. Do you need help with that?
HI Jim the video is PUBLIC knowledge feel free to upload it to where ever, i couldn't upload to google video as it times out ???
We will soon be uploading our water fuel cell replication and self running neon switching RV demos
all open sourced [plans and videos]
I'll just simply read up on other peoples comments or abuse regarding this latest Chas video as I'm frustrated with registration and search
;D
Your file is too big by the looks of it.
I'll rencode and upload.
Quote from: Jimboot on September 07, 2007, 09:32:26 AM
Your file is too big by the looks of it.
I'll rencode and upload.
Please upload it here, if possible.
Not everyone is able to access megaupload without installing their toolbar.
I?m very reluctant when it comes to install toolbars and other such free ?gifts?.
Many thanks,
Tinu
.
It DOES work.
It only needs some tweaking that is all!
The concept is interesting, but either the billiard balls are changed for heavier balls or the whole thing has to be made lighter and smoother. Or both things.
Umm to a novice this is amazing. Still encoding but is Chas saying that there is energy for the taking from the point of no motion to the time it takes to approach the speed of gravity? Since the object has to speed up to the point of gravity from a state of inertia there is energy there that is free? Sorry I have no expertise in this area.
@Ashtweth, Thank you very much for your effort. You did a great job. Chas seems to be a friendly person. Thanks for this first video.
I see nothing more than a basic Lever in the gravity wheel.. 2 balls at 2x the distance to lift 4 balls.. I mean seriously.. put 4 balls on a lever at 1/2 the distance of 2 balls and see if it lifts the 4 balls.. also there is a loss from the gravity moving the balls from the outer wheel to the inner wheel and other mechanical loss. hope I'm wrong
You just can't help but like Charles Campbell. He's sincere, enthusiastic and quite the garage tinkerer. I wish I'd had a grandpa like him when I was young. Charles, you can tell, hasn't got a dishonest bone in his body or a selfish thought in his heart. I'm pleased he's getting some attention for his work. He obviously enjoys showing and talking about his machines. That's great.
That's all I have to say about Charles Campbell and his "free energy machines". That's all there really is to say!
Humbugger
Build, replicate improve and test and report or leave it alone and or F##K off.
usually thats objective,
if FE is that easy to access why have the world banks and oil companies enslaved us for years?
keep going and never stop-kone head
"...test and report or leave it alone and or F##K off..."
You should listen to your own advice and take it to heart, Ashtweth.
Looks like it maybe the codec that is the problem. I am creating a couple of different formats.
Its compressed well, and can be uploaded to google video except my google video upload keeps cutting off.
i suggest people upload it to google video.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 10:44:33 AM
You just can't help but like Charles Campbell. He's sincere, enthusiastic and quite the garage tinkerer. I wish I'd had a grandpa like him when I was young. Charles, you can tell, hasn't got a dishonest bone in his body or a selfish thought in his heart. I'm pleased he's getting some attention for his work. He obviously enjoys showing and talking about his machines. That's great.
That's all I have to say about Charles Campbell and his "free energy machines".
Humbugger
I think the comments are just hilarious?
Quote from: Nostradamus2 on September 07, 2007, 10:06:35 AM
No worth to download the video. This machine does not work. It's old man delusion.
Hey madam, what are you referring to here? Still on dial up? You have any objections against discussing the video here? lol I'm Dutch but "It's old man delusion."; is that even a sentence? You should elaborate on this while respecting the inventor.
I think Chas is way hip, thats all the evidence we need. haha He gives valuable explanations on how the smot works and some clues for milkovic's pendulum. He shows how the drag suffered by a rolling ball translates into RPM's! I think that's one fantastic conclusion.
He makes the brilliant statement people who say things are impossible just haven't tried and are not going to try either. What is it? 1) Did physics investigate all perpetual motion devices like they say they did. Or 2) did they ignore all of them because non of them work? If 2 then 1 is a lie. Chas knows. :D
I know how momentum works only by my school books. Those where written by some one who was not at all interested in checking his facts as they are widely accepted.
What is also interesting is that most previous gravity engines don't work because they speed up to a point where the pulse disappears. Chas says they become weightless :-)
If one does a quick, off the cuff, relatively simple and sensible mental calculation of the Bessler wheels (the original ones), and looks at the constructional information in this context...then one quickly realizes that in the Bessler situation, it is very likely that the motional components have a mass that outweighs the structural components by a factor of about 2:1 and up to 4:1 or 5:1.
It was stated that the systems were covered in wood. And they weighed in at the 900lb (kilos?) mark. Nothing says that the structural components themselves were wood or not. One might assume metal, and thus the wheel stucture being about the same or less/more (but in the area of similar mass) mass than the motional components, but that would be an assumption, same as I'm doing here, but in the opposite direction.
I'd guess that the motional components outweigh the structural components in a working system, buy a factor of 3:1 or 5:1, as a range. This range being essential for getting an initial wheel up and running. All guesses, but I'm rarely wrong. Which is why I'll be moving forward on such a guess, in my attempts to create a working wheel.
It's inertial vs kinetic here, and the more 'working' mass that is motional vs the structural....the better. What this would mean, is that during the 'lurch' and 'work' part of the 'lever/fulcrum' function, the mass differential between the two primary and horizontaily shifting points becomes the dominant force, as much as they can be, without a high mass or high inertia wheel structure impeding that function. The other masses which can be put in motion (operational masses that are not in their primary or dominant phase) can also contribute, as much as they can, once again, wthout a high mass wheel causing too much interference via inertial 'reluctance'.
Quote from: Prophmaji on September 07, 2007, 11:09:49 AM900lb (kilos?)
900 pounds, 407.7 kilograms.
I'm going to try to upload this to Google Video. More comments on success.
EDIT: Google Video won't work for me either, and Youtube complains about the video being too large. Anyway I can't see why anyone couldn't easily download it from Megaupload as I did.
my conclusion at the moment: interesting video. simple idea. the snookers ball concept should work, when build properly (at least i can not see why not). but i just spend only some minutes to think over.
original gravity wheel with the unbalanced red weight connected to thy flywheels/generator is still missing. would be interesting, because this concept would be ready to use for 1kW free power. maybe sometimes later.
thanks to chas for this first impression.
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 07, 2007, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 10:44:33 AM
You just can't help but like Charles Campbell. He's sincere, enthusiastic and quite the garage tinkerer. I wish I'd had a grandpa like him when I was young. Charles, you can tell, hasn't got a dishonest bone in his body or a selfish thought in his heart. I'm pleased he's getting some attention for his work. He obviously enjoys showing and talking about his machines. That's great.
That's all I have to say about Charles Campbell and his "free energy machines".
Humbugger
I think the comments are just hilarious?
Quote from: Nostradamus2 on September 07, 2007, 10:06:35 AM
No worth to download the video. This machine does not work. It's old man delusion.
Hey madam, what are you referring to here? Still on dial up? You have any objections against discussing the video here? lol I'm Dutch but "It's old man delusion."; is that even a sentence? You should elaborate on this while respecting the inventor.
This must not be one of your best days, I suppose. ::)
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 07, 2007, 11:09:42 AM
I know how momentum works only by my school books. Those where written by some one who was not at all interested in checking his facts as they are widely accepted.
Is it really how do they write books there? ???
Well, Hum is a real voice here.
Nostradamus2? opinion is short but very clear and sincere.
What?s wrong or hilarious with that?
Tinu
PS May I suggest you saving the rest of the good name you may have left?
My GOD... Chas is a Friken Genius! ;D
The only reason its having trouble is minor guidance issues. If he
tweaked them, it would run forever.
Genius!
Thanks Chas! Ashtweth, and others involved.
;D
Hi Ash,
am already downloading it from megaupload.com
It is already 66 % done now.
Will upload it to a overunity.com folder.
At megaupload.com you don?t need to download a toolbar,
just give in the 3 digits code at the right top and wait 45 seconds
to download it.
Should work for everyone, but some don?t seem to see this 3 digit code...
Stay tuned.
Regards, Stefan.
Ok, Im no expert, and maybe Im overlooking some things...
But I think these are simple fixes.
1) get another set of balls.
2) place several of the extra balls on the bottom loader slide.
This is similar to the top loader - which when filled with other
balls - keeps the ball from getting too much speed and
flying off the tracks.
Also, if there are plenty of extra balls in action, there is no
need for perfect timings. A ball is always ready to be scooped up.
The other place where I saw the balls come out was the rear tube
of the bottom loader. Surely speed reduction will help.. but also
A system of blockage may be in order.
Such as a solid plate that stays put behind the tube, so if the ball
goes too far, its stopped and wont fall out.
Other suggestions are to add extra guide wire(s) (coat hangers?)
on all the slides so that there is no way the balls can fall off.
The only other thing that may need some tweaking is the bottom
loader swing gate. If it does not close fast enough another ball
can force it to stay open - which allows two balls in one tube.
The system should probably use a reverse leverage system,
and mount the stopper under the ball instead of on top. That
may help reduce the chance that the ball can force its way
thru - as it cant Hop over a stopper peg or door.
The system 'play' shouldnt really be an issue of these are fixed
(i think).
Please give Chas my Praises, as well as this info.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 01:26:41 PM
Hi Ash,
am already downloading it from megaupload.com
It is already 66 % done now.
Will upload it to a overunity.com folder.
At megaupload.com you don?t need to download a toolbar,
just give in the 3 digits code at the right top and wait 45 seconds
to download it.
Should work for everyone, but some don?t seem to see this 3 digit code...
Stay tuned.
Regards, Stefan.
Thanks, Stefan!
Before reaching the 3 digits code, there is a redirect to a page http://www.megaupload.com/toolbar/? containing something like ?All download slots assigned to your country are currently in use. Please try again in a few hours or install the Megaupload Toolbar for immediate access - with the toolbar installed, there are no more slot limitations for you!"
But this can?t be for a long time. Still, it?s happening. It happened to me before; never been able to download from megaupload, despite the day, hour etc.
Therefore, I rather believe that megaupload is simply not interested in some countries, unless the users there install their toolbar.
Tinu
Chas is a genius,
but I just did a quick calculation and
it can only work,
if the distance of the right side is at least more than 3 times farther away from the axis,
then the left side ( look at his scheme on the wall)...
He always has 6 balls at the left that have to be lifted
versus 2 balls that are on the right side.
So if the distance is only twice at the right side, then you have:
6 x 1 is bigger than 2 x 2 = 6 > 4 , so you see, it would only work if:
6 x 1 is less than 2 x 4 = 6 < 8,
so you see, I guess Chas has not yet the right distance on the right side to make it work.
But the principle is really so simple amazing, that normal people, who
are not playing with it, do not find this !!!
;)
Genius !
Will now upload to overunity.com
Many thanks to Chas and the Ashtweth team !
Quote from: tinu on September 07, 2007, 02:01:46 PM
Thanks, Stefan!
Before reaching the 3 digits code, there is a redirect to a page http://www.megaupload.com/toolbar/? containing something like ?All download slots assigned to your country are currently in use.
Hmm,
then your browser seems to be setup wrongly,
I only get this advertisement windows in a new
popup window, which I can close !
Use the Firefox browser and it will work for you...
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 02:08:38 PM
So if the distance is only twice at the right side, then you have:
6 x 1 is bigger than 2 x 2 = 6 > 4 , so you see, it would only work if:
Only the dropping ball is important to generate a pulse.
I've embedded the video here. ;)
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=259
Yes, but, because there is centrifical forces involved... that massive
flywheel in action, Maybe the need for less balls is realized?
Another question....
This looks a lot different than the original video of his other gravity
wheel. Can the other wheel be explained? I suppose I could
work it out in time, but maybe Ill foul it up heh
Also, are there any still shots or models on the design and construction?
No offense, but the camera work was pretty awful. Either it was not
in the right place when Chas was trying to point out something... or
the view angels were not good..etc.
For next time, I think its better if the inventor makes it very clear to the
camera man BEFORE shooting footage. Then he can plan out the
shots in advance.
Each 'part' should have been filmed separately in operation, so could
clearly see the details of operations, and makeup of the construction.
A shot then could be made to follow the entire system in continuous revolution.
Descriptions could have been added by planning and writing things down,
or added via audio overlay after the video shots were token.
Done so would have shortened the vid, and or made certain details that
are now hard to see, much more clear.
Anyway, thanks for the work. Its still an awesome inspiration.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 02:08:38 PM
Chas is a genius,
but I just did a quick calculation and
it can only work,
if the distance of the right side is at least more than 3 times farther away from the axis,
then the left side ( look at his scheme on the wall)...
He always has 6 balls at the left that have to be lifted
versus 2 balls that are on the right side.
So if the distance is only twice at the right side, then you have:
6 x 1 is bigger than 2 x 2 = 6 > 4 , so you see, it would only work if:
6 x 1 is less than 2 x 4 = 6 < 8,
so you see, I guess Chas has not yet the right distance on the right side to make it work.
But the principle is really so simple amazing, that normal people, who
are not playing with it, do not find this !!!
;)
Genius !
Will now upload to overunity.com
Many thanks to Chas and the Ashtweth team !
one problem, as you pass 2x the size on the outer wheel, your angluar distance decreases, and at 3x the distance you only have 1.5x balls on average pushing down
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 02:13:40 PM
Quote from: tinu on September 07, 2007, 02:01:46 PM
Thanks, Stefan!
Before reaching the 3 digits code, there is a redirect to a page http://www.megaupload.com/toolbar/? containing something like ?All download slots assigned to your country are currently in use.
Hmm,
then your browser seems to be setup wrongly,
I only get this advertisement windows in a new
popup window, which I can close !
Use the Firefox browser and it will work for you...
Srry. It?s not working.
I?m using Firefox and IE. Both behave exactly the same.
Tinu
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 02:50:33 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 02:08:38 PM
Chas is a genius,
but I just did a quick calculation and
it can only work,
if the distance of the right side is at least more than 3 times farther away from the axis,
then the left side ( look at his scheme on the wall)...
He always has 6 balls at the left that have to be lifted
versus 2 balls that are on the right side.
So if the distance is only twice at the right side, then you have:
6 x 1 is bigger than 2 x 2 = 6 > 4 , so you see, it would only work if:
6 x 1 is less than 2 x 4 = 6 < 8,
so you see, I guess Chas has not yet the right distance on the right side to make it work.
But the principle is really so simple amazing, that normal people, who
are not playing with it, do not find this !!!
;)
Genius !
Will now upload to overunity.com
Many thanks to Chas and the Ashtweth team !
one problem, as you pass 2x the size on the outer wheel, your angluar distance decreases, and at 3x the distance you only have 1.5x balls on average pushing down
???
how do you mean this exaxtly ?
My upper conclusion was also wrong, because I did not count in the angles...
I have drawn down now the diagram of the wheel on paper and taking the
5-0-10 dimensions, that means 2:1 distances that Chas uses,
it gets clear, that at the
left side only 5 balls count for the leverage and at the right side
only 2 balls count in.
Putting in the angles we got then on the left side for the 5 balls:
2 x 0.5 = 1
2 x 0.9 = 1.8
1 x 1 = 1
=========
sum: 3.8 units
Now on the right side we have:
1 x 1.8 at about 2 o?clock= 1.8
1 x 2 at 3 o?clock = 2
====================
sum: 3.8
So this would not get us a running wheel,
this is why we need a bigger distance.
This will be calculated in the next message.
my calculations were off.. less than 23% of the time will 2 balls be on the down stroke at 3x sized outer wheel
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lasers.org%2Fou%2Fcambellgravitywheel.gif&hash=14807a698fc9e30dbb790b1c21e17127326a9dd4)
if anyone wants the orginal visio file, just let me know.. base radius of each circle is 2 times the orginal to be exact 2" 4" 6" is size the 39 degrees is a theoretical maximum, no slope was provided for the ramps, where the 4" outer wheel has slopes calculated in, maximum at 0 degree slope is 60 degrees
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 02:50:33 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 02:08:38 PM
Chas is a genius,
but I just did a quick calculation and
it can only work,
if the distance of the right side is at least more than 3 times farther away from the axis,
then the left side ( look at his scheme on the wall)...
He always has 6 balls at the left that have to be lifted
versus 2 balls that are on the right side.
So if the distance is only twice at the right side, then you have:
6 x 1 is bigger than 2 x 2 = 6 > 4 , so you see, it would only work if:
6 x 1 is less than 2 x 4 = 6 < 8,
so you see, I guess Chas has not yet the right distance on the right side to make it work.
But the principle is really so simple amazing, that normal people, who
are not playing with it, do not find this !!!
;)
Genius !
Will now upload to overunity.com
Many thanks to Chas and the Ashtweth team !
one problem, as you pass 2x the size on the outer wheel, your angluar distance decreases, and at 3x the distance you only have 1.5x balls on average pushing down
I believe that between these two posts, Harti's and rMuD's, we have the whole problem neatly placed in a nutshell. Unfortunately for all those whose hopes are sky high, the convergence on why this wheel will never spin on its own is very rapid if you consider these two posts carefully and objectively.
I have drawn up a super-simple diagram in Autocad which shows me the obvious fact that as the ratio of the two diameters is increased from two to three, what rMud says is exactly true or even worse. There are only two balls on the right side for a very few degrees of rotation.
At all other times, only one ball can be on the right side, as the lower ball has been delivered to the lower return ramp and yet there is significant rotation that must take place before a new ball socket comes into position to receive the next ball from the upper ramp.
I'm smart enough to see all of this clearly, but too dumb as yet to figure out how to upload an Autocad drawing here. I'll try though...give me a few days for editing... :-X
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099)
At a ratio of 3.8637 to 1, the linear supply and return ramps reach the theoretical limit of having no possible slope left to deliver balls left and right, since the linear vertical chord distance between positions on.the outer wheel is exactly one unit, same as the inner wheel diameter. At this ratio, the maximum number of balls on the right side at any given moment becomes one.
In the words of the entirely mortal Mr. Mercury...Another One Bites the Dust. Sorry!
Humbugger
EDIT: I was off busily drawing my little picture and trying to figure out how to upload it while rMuD beat me to the punch! Nice work rMud! I'll have to get Visio! You and Harti share the debunking prize on this one.
Congratulations! Saved a lot of folks a lot of time they can apply to other ideas and pursuits hopefully.
Okay, upload has started now.
Could take a while as I only have about 22 Kbytes/sec upload rate right now..
Have a look at
www.overunity.com/campbell (http://www.overunity.com/campbell)
There will be 13 parts as a splitted WinRAR archive.
You need the free packer WinRAR to unpack it to AVI again.
e.g. from www.winrar.de
The splitup into 13 x 10 MB parts is much easier to download than a 130 MByte
single file and it slows down the load on my server.
Each part is 10 Mbytes, only the last is about 8 Mbytes.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 10:43:46 AM
I see nothing more than a basic Lever in the gravity wheel.. 2 balls at 2x the distance to lift 4 balls.. I mean seriously.. put 4 balls on a lever at 1/2 the distance of 2 balls and see if it lifts the 4 balls.. also there is a loss from the gravity moving the balls from the outer wheel to the inner wheel and other mechanical loss. hope I'm wrong
I am sorry to say, but rMud is right I think.
I failed to see the logic sorry about that, me bad. :(
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 03:46:40 PM
my calculations were off.. less than 23% of the time will 2 balls be on the down stroke at 3x sized outer wheel
if anyone wants the orginal visio file, just let me know.. base radius of each circle is 2 times the orginal to be exact 2" 4" 6" is size the 39 degrees is a theoretical maximum, no slope was provided for the ramps, where the 4" outer wheel has slopes calculated in, maximum at 0 degree slope is 60 degrees
Hi rMuD,
can you please redraw your wheel with 4:1 distance and upload again
a screenshot ?
Many thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 03:46:40 PM
my calculations were off.. less than 23% of the time will 2 balls be on the down stroke at 3x sized outer wheel
if anyone wants the orginal visio file, just let me know.. base radius of each circle is 2 times the orginal to be exact 2" 4" 6" is size the 39 degrees is a theoretical maximum, no slope was provided for the ramps, where the 4" outer wheel has slopes calculated in, maximum at 0 degree slope is 60 degrees
Hi rMuD,
can you please redraw your wheel with 4:1 distance and upload again
a screenshot ?
Many thanks.
Gravity assist goes to zero at 3.8637:1 no point in trying 4:1
"At a ratio of 3.8637 to 1, the linear supply and return ramps reach the theoretical limit of having no possible slope left to deliver balls left and right, since the linear vertical chord distance between positions on.the outer wheel is exactly one unit, same as the inner wheel diameter. At this ratio, the maximum number of balls on the right side at any given moment becomes one."
So Humbugger,
are you saying, that it works at 3.8637 to 1
or that the wheel can not work ?
Well, it seems this wheel is more complicated than I thought from the first glance.
Here is why:
We have 12 slots-spikes on the wheel each being 30 degrees apart.
I just drawed it with a 4:1 distance onto paper.
Then you have the leverage of the left side to:
2 balls 0.5 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
2 balls 0.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.6 units
1 ball 1.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
====================================
sum= 3.6 units
On the right side we have then only for 2 x 15 degrees:
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
So you see , that we have an leverage advantage of
7.8 / 3.6 units = about 2.16
The problem now is, that we have this only for 30 degrees instead
of 60 degrees at the right side.
Although we have enough snooker balls waiting on the top
to go the 30 degrees ride on the right side.
But after some time more snooker balls wil be down then up.
But as we have the leverage advantage of 2.16 to 1 on the right side
and the wheel has also intertia, we always give it a push with a 2.16 leverage
advantage force for 30 degrees, which is stored inside the intertia of the
wheel, so the wheel thinks all the time ( or at least for 30 degrees intervalls)
that someone is pushing it 2.16 harder at the right side, than at the left side...
So, I don?t know... does it work or doesn?t it work
from the mathematical standpoint ?
I am a bit confused now, but it seems this device
is harder to describe than it seems...
Regards, Stefan.
Surely one has to calculate into the wheel
the Angular momentum conservation law
as the wheel is tapped in my calculation every 30 degrees
out of a 60 degree rotation with 2.16 more torque at the right side.
This stores intertia flywheel energy into the wheel which keeps
lifting the balls on the left side...
On a side note, that no matter what you do here.. it's going to come out to 1:1 this literally follows the math of a Pully with loss because of the gravity feed.. Second FYI the only reason I can see this functioning is in the current design, if a ball falls out on the upward motion will there be a positive gravity effect.
4x the size.. down to 28.8% (estimation should be 30 degrees I think) with no slope for the return or feeder so it's either average of 90% of the time there will be a ball on the down stroke.. meaning it will go backwards 10% of the time
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lasers.org%2Fou%2Fcambellgravitywheel2.gif&hash=0a000994c6586de05ae9aaa491da052e0b410ef5)
I'm saying (surprise surprise) that it cant possibly work at a ratio of 3.8763 or more because 30 degrees on the outer wheel is then equal to 1 unit of height; same as the diameter of the inside ring of ball holders. There is no possible slope left for the linear ramps. Only one ball then could ever be on the right side now. A new ball cannot enter the outer wheel on top right until after the lower ball had left at the ratio of 3.8763 to 1.
Humbugger
EDIT: Okay...rMuD to the rescue again! You see his two radials in blue at 28 degrees apart intersecting his 4" circle, well what I'm saying is that if they were 30 degrees, they would hit a 1" height intersect if the circle were 3.8763",
I find it much easier to visualize, rMuD, if the wheel is rotated 15 degrees so that you can easily see these relationships, similar to how you have drawn your 28 degree lines.
Humbugger
Okay, if we mathematically say the wheel is accelerated by a 2.16
torque advantage for 30 degrees out of 60 degrees,
then we have a duty cycle of input power of 50on :50off .
so for one complete rotation we have got only half the applied torque.
That means we can just half the torque on the right side.
So instead of 7.8 units we will have then 3.9 units,
which is still more than the 3.6 units we have on the
left side.
So indeed this wheel will spin up and accelerate
and produce mechanical energy from gravity.
Ok, changed my mind: This system will not work.
Each ball going down must go a longer way up on the other side. Inner circle draws a longer way for the same height compared to the way down on the outer circle. And it helps nothing to change the ratio of the diameters. The ways to travel came directly out of the ratio of diameters and are in proportion against the resulting forces. For example: As wider the outer circle gets as less a ball on the inner circle gets lifted by a ball on the outer circle on its way down.
A demo-unit would behaive as follows: Either you ran out of balls on the upper level or they get into a jam/dam up on the lower level. Imagine the timing - thats a proplem here! The best what you can get, is a balanced system with the lowest losses at an optimum configuration, when moved by external force.
Forget it. It is a nice, simple idea - but too simple. This setup should be easily simulated with a good Mechanics-Workbench-Software (i have none, did it on paper).
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 06:00:33 PM
I can't seem to figure out how to upload an autocad.dwg file or change it to a bitmap...my bad.
Humbugger
Do you have Autocad for WIndows ?
Then press ALT and PRINT together,
then the bitmap is in the windows cache.
Then start a graphics program like Irfanview.
Say PASTE command from the edit menu and save
as JPEG.
Please let me know, where my calculation is wrong.
I still see a 3.9 to 3.6 advantage for running...
Okay, thank you... :-[...I now have a saved image. How the hell to I upload it into a post?
Humbugger's total inexperience at posting graphic images is fully exposed to all... :-[
15 degrees offset.. no balls at 4x 2 at 3x and 2x
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lasers.org%2Fou%2Fcambellgravitywheel3.gif&hash=863382ee348d52088b607ff8ab6abf3130f6dd92)
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 06:32:27 PM
15 degrees offset.. no balls at 4x 2 at 3x and 2x
What do you mean by this ?
Can you explain it a bit more please ?
What about the 3.9 to 3.6 advantage of running ?
@Hum,
just put the path to your picture into the attachment line
and then press the Post button.
As the ratio of the two diameters is increased from two to three, what rMud says is true but even worse. There are only two balls on the right side for a very few degrees of rotation, not 1.5 balls average, but much less. The picture shows that brief moment.
At all other times, i.e. most of the time, only one ball can be on the right side, as the lower ball has been delivered to the lower return ramp and yet there is significant rotation that must take place before a new ball socket comes into position to receive the next ball.
Note that our feed and return ramps are shown level but in reality they have to be sloping. The slopes further reduce the short rotation angle (to near zero or below) when there are two balls on the 3" rim.
At a ratio of 3.8763 to 1, the linear supply and return ramps reach the theoretical limit of having no possible slope left to deliver balls left and right, since the linear vertical chord distance between positions on.the outer wheel is exactly the same as the inner wheel diameter. At this ratio, the maximum number of balls on the right side at any given moment becomes one. For anything larger, there are times when no ball at all is on the right side.
@rMuD,
why do you show yellow balls at the right side being just only 2 or 3 times away from the axis ?
There they will never be !?
There will be 2 balls almost 4 times away from the axis at the right side !
I dont know...
The thing seems to really pick up some speed. Maybe there is something not
considered.
For one thing, the balls dont just rest when they enter. They roll down
getting acceleration, and then once in the tubes, they roll at a steep 45 degree
angle (again more acceleration) slamming into the waiting position.
so, its not just a weight, its more like a power Push.
Okay, Hum,
now redraw your drawing, that you have rotated the wheel by
15 degrees, so you have only 5 balls in the left side and 2 balls
at about 4 x times the distance from the axis.
Then count the torques and add them up.
Do you come up with a different value than 3.9 to 3.6 advantage for running ?
Maybe my point does not makes sense. Lets try again...
If I set a 100lb ball weight on your back (backpack basket)..
or
I set roll that same ball on a track of 3 ft at 35 degrees into your sack...
What do you think will happen?
It becomes amplified. Like a slide hammer. The weight amplifies from the
acceleration and speed.. and when it slams into the resting place, it may
break your back from the additional forces.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 06:43:29 PM
@rMuD,
why do you show yellow balls at the right side being just only 2 or 3 times away from the axis ?
There they will never be !?
There will be 2 balls almost 4 times away from the axis at the right side !
I did a 15 degree off center... I can modify version #2 to show balls there is no balls at 4x at 15 degree offset, at 0 degrees there will be 1 ball.. the angle so that you can get a return is limited to 3.87x the size of the return wheel, as per the drawing of humbugger..
the diameter of the inner wheel is static, the outer wheel varies.. the distance you can lift a ball is static, so as you grow you lose angular distance.. at 3.87x times larger you go below 0 and the mechanism starts to go backwards as there would be 0 force a percentage of the time
only way it will work is if a ball falls off the left side... or you can apply some external force that will lighten the balls on the up swing, and can account for the wasted energy of the ramps and mechanical losses...
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 06:57:59 PM
Okay, Hum,
now redraw your drawing, that you have rotated the wheel by
15 degrees, so you have only 5 balls in the left side and 2 balls
at about 4 x times the distance from the axis.
Then count the torques and add them up.
Do you come up with a different value than 3.9 to 3.6 advantage for running ?
if I go down to 15 degrees per place to hold a ball.. then there will be 10 balls on the left side and 2 on the right
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 07:06:47 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 06:43:29 PM
@rMuD,
why do you show yellow balls at the right side being just only 2 or 3 times away from the axis ?
There they will never be !?
There will be 2 balls almost 4 times away from the axis at the right side !
I did a 15 degree off center... I can modify version #2 to show balls there is no balls at 4x at 15 degree offset,
Please rotate your wheel by 15 degrees so it shows the start position as in the Chas video.
There will be 5 balls at the left side and 2 balls at almost 4x distance.
This is the start position.
There we have 2.16 to 1 advantage.
Maybe you can show then further multiple rotation positions so it gets clear where and
when the balls are where.
Please upload a ZIP archive with 24 pictures showing the balls in each 15 degree
rotation.
I will then make an animation out of it, so everyone can see, how the balls go where and when.
Thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 06:57:59 PM
Okay, Hum,
now redraw your drawing, that you have rotated the wheel by
15 degrees, so you have only 5 balls in the left side and 2 balls
at about 4 x times the distance from the axis.
Then count the torques and add them up.
Do you come up with a different value than 3.9 to 3.6 advantage for running ?
The whole point is, Stefan, that
there cannot be any time that there are two balls present on the right side if the outer radius is approaching 4.
Even at 3, there is only a very short time when there are two balls on the right! My drawing as it stands shows that very short moment in time; a few degrees of rotation at best when two balls are there.
Cannot draw it like you suggest. Only M.C. Escher can draw that!
If the radius is greater than 3.8763, there will be times when no ball is on the right; there will never be two balls.At anything above 3.8763, the lower ball is off the wheel BEFORE the upper ball comes on the wheel!
G'day all,
Here is a simple diagram that shows that the arrangement as stated does not work.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Fbesslerdiagram.gif&hash=1117866d327670a580b8dd4c7d34a84f6c724496)
As you can see the longer the distance from the axis on the right hand side, the smaller the lift on the left hand side. In this drawing I did not even take into consideration the slope necessary to deliver the balls to the right, therefore the actual usable arc is less and gets smaller with distance.
The amount of force available on the right hand side of the lever is directly proportional to the amount of lift available on the other side.
In other words, if it does not work on X=2 it will not work on X=3 or X=4.
Incidentally, the drawing is not to scale, it is only to demonstrate the principle.
Hans von Lieven
I find Hans drawing and explanation very confusing. Maybe that's because I love my own solution and cannot clearly see anyone elses. ;D I think my explanation is clear.
Humbugger
Hmm, Hans,
can you point then please out, where my calculation is wrong ?
Gday Stefan,
At a distance of 4:1 you have insufficient lift to bring the next ball into play.
Hans von Lieven
it will always be no matter how small or how large.. it's always going to equal unity of 1 - ramp slopes - mechanical/friction loss
15 degree animated gif would be 2 frames, if I can get it to unsnap/glue correctly... I'll do 5 degrees so you get a better grasp on it, but I gotta do some work that pays the bills.. I'm sure I feel like procrastinating soon, and draw it up
First, i want to say that i'm not good at physics or maths, so i may be very wrong, but there was just something that didn't seem like it would work to me, so i draw you what's bothering me ;)
The road the ball makes to go down and gain energy is shorter than the road it takes to go up and lose energy. Even tho the inner circle is smaller than the big one, the ball is still traveling a longer distance to lift itself up.
So, it won't work?
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 07:28:58 PM
Gday Stefan,
At a distance of 4:1 you have insufficient lift to bring the next ball into play.
Hans von Lieven
Okay, I calculated it at the starting points only.
But also with your diagram I can see, when I only have one ball at the right side,
I can see, that I have enough leverage to to lift the next ball enough to get onto
the upper ramp and run outwards 4 times and then do the next lift again.
Humbugger,
Since you are such an expert.. Im waiting for you to express the
true 3d aspects.
You still do not account for the ball traveling at a 30 (?) degree slope
once its going down the PVC loader tube.
The speed the ball gains, gives it more power.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 07:28:58 PM
Gday Stefan,
At a distance of 4:1 you have insufficient lift to bring the next ball into play.
Hans von Lieven
Okay, I calculated it at the starting points only.
But also with your diagram I can see, when I only have one ball at the right side,
I can see, that I have enough leverage to to lift the next ball enough to get onto
the upper ramp and run outwards 4 times and then do the next lift again.
I then still have 3.9 to 3.6 advantage just with one ball at 4 x distance from the axis..
Quote from: vis3r on September 07, 2007, 07:32:46 PM
First, i want to say that i'm not good at physics or maths, so i may be very wrong, but there was just something that didn't seem like it would work to me, so i draw you what's bothering me ;)
The road the ball makes to go down and gain energy is shorter than the road it takes to go up and lose energy. Even tho the inner circle is smaller than the big one, the ball is still traveling a longer distance to lift itself up.
So, it won't work?
Longer roads don?t play a role,
just torque arms, so how
long a weight stays how long at which distance from the vertical axis plane...
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 07:38:28 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 07:28:58 PM
Gday Stefan,
At a distance of 4:1 you have insufficient lift to bring the next ball into play.
Hans von Lieven
Okay, I calculated it at the starting points only.
But also with your diagram I can see, when I only have one ball at the right side,
I can see, that I have enough leverage to to lift the next ball enough to get onto
the upper ramp and run outwards 4 times and then do the next lift again.
I then still have 3.9 to 3.6 advantage just with one ball at 4 x distance from the axis..
you lose that .3 for the time period there are zero balls in the system
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lasers.org%2Fou%2Fcambellgravitywheel4.gif&hash=d6cac5b163de67317d4b32e044399183945ffeda)
As user zero says,
surely there could be an "impact" factor from
balls hitting the wheel and giving it an even greater impulse.
not if you add more extra balls waiting at the bottom
Correct Stefan,
But in this case you need more distance than 4:1 and you are back where you started, the equation does not change with distance.
Adding more balls at the bottom will not help, for every ball that drops on the right you have to lift another one to the starting position in order to get rotation.
Hans von Lieven
Hi RMud,
I don?t know what you drawing up here,
but the only thing we have here is this.
Still a 3.9 to 3.6 advantage, if you slow the wheel down,
so it the red ball has enough time to go from the axis out to 4 x the distance !
Then the red ball has enough torque to lift the next yellow ball up onto the upper ramp.
G'day all,
Try the following experiment, as I did,
Cut out a cardboard disk, draw on it concentric circles. then stick a coin where the balls will be for a given position and observe what happens at the different diameters when you put a pin in the axis and let it find equilibrium.
It does not work.
Hans von Lieven
This is the trouble with armchair math guys. Even today, there are physicist that
have troubles figuring out exact models for certain situations.
Being that I doubt anyone on this board is a high level physicist, they are
only going to give halfa$$ equations that are way off-base.
Plain and simple, the additional rolling and impact forces do affect the output
power. There is no question about it.
I understand impact forces on a whole other level, because of the martial arts
background I have. I have managed to discover the secrets of short range
power - otherwise known as 'Explosive Force'. No physicist to my
knowledge has ever modeled it. Most artist cant even wrap their brains
around it, let alone have the ability to do it.
Sorry zero.
This is not armchair maths, I actually made a model of the forces involved, the results are quite clear.
Hans von Lieven
We have to define first,
how many balls are in the system !
In my RMud modified drawing there are 7,
but what happens, if there are 8 or 9 ?
No Hans, you didnt.
You made a 2d representation. If you watch the video... you can see that the
ball travels a very different pathway.
Once it enters the tube, it rolls from the back of the machine, to the front -
at maybe a 30 degree angle. This causes the ball to speed up very fast,
and once hits the waiting pocket - it crashes downwards into it.. giving it
more power to the downwards movement.
--
hartiberlin - you can add as many balls needed to the system to make it
work. They can store at the top and bottom of the device without any issues.
Okay,
here we go,
now with 8 balls.
Let us keep all calculating it with 8 balls,
cause this is the starting position,
where you have the 2.16 to 1 torque start configuration
as I calculated earlier.
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 07:36:15 PM
Humbugger,
Since you are such an expert.. Im waiting for you to express the
true 3d aspects.
You still do not account for the ball traveling at a 30 (?) degree slope
once its going down the PVC loader tube.
The speed the ball gains, gives it more power.
You entirely overestimate my expertise. However, I do think you may be quite overcomplicating the solution. Forgetting about all friction losses and assuming that the balls can roll under magical power on an absolutely flat ramp after being deposited on one end, we are presently attempting an intuitive proof based simply on the weight distribution at any given time on the wheel. If it can't work under those super-idealized conditions, it can't work in worse conditions either.
A fair assumption for our present purpose is that the ball is pretty much reset to zero, kinetic energy-wise, when it makes the transition out of its "non-rolling but travelling on the wheel" mode and into its rolling down the linear ramp mode. Each time it is forced to change direction in your 3D model, there will be a net energy decrease.
Humbugger
G'day Stefan,
You are still stuck with the basic problem and that is how to rotate the entire assembly 30 degrees to bring the next ball into play when you only have 27 degrees or less to play with and only one ball to do it with. The potential energy in the system does not change with a 3 dimensional arrangement or any other arrangement.
Incidentally zero, I am a qualified engineer, physics major at that :-)
Hans von Lieven
Hans, if you say that there is no more potential in such a manor, then
either you are a LIAR, or you have not looked at the device in motion and
do not understand what I am talking about.
As I said before..
If I put a basket on your back.. and gently set a 100lb ball into it...
OR
I roll a 100lb ball on a 3ft rail at a 30 degree slope downwards,
which then slams into your basket at speed...
Is there no energy difference?! If you say there isnt, then You are Not
a physicist.
From the starting position cambell_harti5.gif ,
when the 2 red balls have gone down to the lower rolling track,
the wheel has lifted the next yellow ball at 11 o?clock to the
12 o?clock top position, so this ball rolls out ,
so that it becomes the
cambell_harti4.gif position, where only 1 red ball is at the
left about 4x distance of the axis, but this
still is enough to lift the next yellow ball from the 11 o?clock to the
12 o?clock top position, so this ball rolls out again to the right.
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 08:23:09 PM
Hans, if you say that there is no more potential in such a manor, then
either you are a LIAR, or you have not looked at the device in motion and
do not understand what I am talking about.
As I said before..
If I put a basket on your back.. and gently set a 100lb ball into it...
OR
I roll a 100lb ball on a 3ft rail at a 30 degree slope downwards,
which then slams into your basket at speed...
Is there no energy difference?! If you say there isnt, then You are Not
a physicist.
This is deteriorating into silly name calling now. Yes there is an energy difference. It is identical to the extra energy it takes you to lift the ball that extra distance up to the top of your inclined ramp. Not a drop more!
Humbugger
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 08:15:24 PM
G'day Stefan,
You are still stuck with the basic problem and that is how to rotate the entire assembly 30 degrees to bring the next ball into play when you only have 27 degrees or less to play with and only one ball to do it with. The potential energy in the system does not change with a 3 dimensional arrangement or any other arrangement.
Incidentally zero, I am a qualified engineer, physics major at that :-)
Hans von Lieven
Then why don?t you calculate the torque arms ?
Where is my error in my calculation ?
Here it is once again:
2 balls 0.5 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
2 balls 0.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.6 units
1 ball 1.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
====================================
sum= 3.6 units
On the right side we have then only for 2 x 15 degrees:
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
Divided by 2 cause only for 30 instead of 60 degres rotation
we still have a 3.9 versus 3.6 advantage.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 08:10:36 PM
Okay,
here we go,
now with 8 balls.
Let us keep all calculating it with 8 balls,
cause this is the starting position,
where you have the 2.16 to 1 torque start configuration
as I calculated earlier.
ok 8 balls.. so were back to the 2x model?
the 4x model has 6 balls 10% of the time and 7 balls 90% of the time,
the 3x model only has 8 balls 23% of the time and 7 the other 27%,
the 2x model has 8 balls 97% of the time (with a 3 degree slope combined with the ramps)
how are you compensating for the -3.6 force on the right side for 10% of the time at 4x the distance?
A) I said "Either" and also, I didnt call him a name. I simply stated he was lieing
if he was saying there was no additional energy.
Dont twist my words.
And
B) You dont know what the additional forces would equal out to be,
so dont be so confident.
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 08:10:36 PM
Okay,
here we go,
now with 8 balls.
Let us keep all calculating it with 8 balls,
cause this is the starting position,
where you have the 2.16 to 1 torque start configuration
as I calculated earlier.
ok 8 balls.. so were back to the 2x model?
the 4x model has 6 balls 10% of the time and 7 balls 90% of the time,
the 3x model only has 8 balls 23% of the time and 7 the other 27%,
the 2x model has 8 balls 97% of the time (with a 3 degree slope combined with the ramps)
how are you compensating for the -3.6 force on the right side for 10% of the time at 4x the distance?
I don?t understand your calculation, please show me the error in my
calculation above.
Thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 08:28:05 PM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 08:15:24 PM
G'day Stefan,
You are still stuck with the basic problem and that is how to rotate the entire assembly 30 degrees to bring the next ball into play when you only have 27 degrees or less to play with and only one ball to do it with. The potential energy in the system does not change with a 3 dimensional arrangement or any other arrangement.
Incidentally zero, I am a qualified engineer, physics major at that :-)
Hans von Lieven
Then why don?t you calculate the torque arms ?
Where is my error in my calculation ?
Here it is once again:
2 balls 0.5 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
2 balls 0.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.6 units
1 ball 1.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
====================================
sum= 3.6 units
On the right side we have then only for 2 x 15 degrees:
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
Devided by 2 cause only for 30 instead of 60 degres
we still have 3.9 versus 3.6.
you error in the calculation is that at 15 degrees on the right side, and 30 degress on the left side
you need 10 balls on the left to have 2 balls on the right to make a closed system
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 08:32:43 PM
you error in the calculation is that at 15 degrees on the right side, and 30 degress on the left side
you need 10 balls on the left to have 2 balls on the right to make a closed system
????
I just stated, I want to run the system with just 8 balls,
which is clearly enough.
Just calculate it all please based on just 8 balls
inside the whole system inclusive on the ramps,
no more balls in the whole system.
I am realizing how poor a web forum like this really is for discussing these kinds of things when the pace gets rolling like this. Every verbal description that refers to a picture needs to have the picture right there with it or the scrolling gets totally out of hand. Then people start jumping in and calling names and demanding that their view be agreed upon before anything proceeds. Posts are entirely missed and left pages behind without ever being understood. The discussion opens to half a dozen distracting competing tangential viewpoints. Nine different guys decide their particular aspect is the only thing that totally explains everything.
I can see how the "fuck it, just buid it and see" attitude would develop rapidly! ;D
Humbugger
Suggesdtion...if we really want to nail anything down, let's let Stephan moderate. Stephan, please have your diagram of reference in each post so we can stay on one page. Pose4 a qestion...ask for various answers. Then move on.
Probably much easier said than done...
G'day Stefan,
The error in your calculation is that you are only looking at one moment in time. This is a kinetic system, not a static one and the ratios shift as the wheel turns. sometimes they are in your favour but more often they are to your detriment.
Incidentally hum and zero, don't take it too seriously, after all we are supposed to have a bit of fun while we air our particular views.
Hans von Lieven
Edit now it shows right...
Okay, Hum,
here again with the 2 pics over each other:
Starting point:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2487.0%3Battach%3D12541&hash=aba7b1cc953720b9cd685685349a41eadc0663d9)
From the starting position
when the 2 red balls have gone down to the lower rolling track,
the wheel has lifted the next yellow ball at 11 o?clock to the
12 o?clock top position, so this ball rolls out ,
so that it becomes the
cambell_harti4.gif position, where only 1 red ball is at the
left about 4x distance of the axis, but this
still is enough to lift the next yellow ball from the 11 o?clock to the
12 o?clock top position, so this ball rolls out again to the right.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2487.0%3Battach%3D12539&hash=ac7b83a62de1da6ff130647ea289c41d83210823)
Humbugger, I never swore at anyone. But to deny a fact is just that. A denial
of the true potential.
---
Also, curious if we remove some ball load chambers what will happen:
pass me the specs.. I'll draw it.. well I will if you want me too..
assumption is now 4x sized wheel with 15 degrees between ball holders?
if that's the case, I'll draw it..
stephan you can msn me, or icq, or aim, or skype.. just pm me
Stefan
Your error is simple. There is never a time when two balls are on the right side if the radius is 4. Some of the time, there is no ball on the right side in any configuration based on 30 degrees and over 3.8763 radius.
I have been saying this all along but you have not heard or understood.
Hum
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099)
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 08:44:13 PM
Humbugger, I never swore at anyone. But to deny a fact is just that. A denial
of the true potential.
---
Also, curious if we remove some ball load chambers what will happen:
all the balls would be at the bottom in 1 revolution
G'day again,
Picture 1 shows exactly what I am talking about. The ball on the right moves in a 26.2 degree arc, therefore on any other concentric circle the movement is 26.2 degrees, insufficient to load the next ball, which requires 30 degrees. It does not matter how much force you have, the movement stops at 26.2 degrees because that is when the ball that does the work leaves the system. At this point the system reverses.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 08:42:16 PM
G'day Stefan,
The error in your calculation is that you are only looking at one moment in time. This is a kinetic system, not a static one and the ratios shift as the wheel turns. sometimes they are in your favour but more often they are to your detriment.
Incidentally hum and zero, don't take it too seriously, after all we are supposed to have a bit of fun while we air our particular views.
Hans von Lieven
Ahh I see,
you mean the normal changing of the torque arms of other Bessler like wheels...
Well, I guess here it does not apply, cause the right side always stays at around 3.9 units
and the left side will never go over 3.9 units, but
maybe goes only around 3.6 units.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 08:47:34 PM
Stefan
Your error is simple. There is never a time when two balls are on the right side if the radius is 4. Some of the time, there is no ball on the right side in any configuration based on 30 degrees and over 3.8763 radius.
I have been saying this all along but you have not heard or understood.
Hum
Hum,
you could build a wheel always so that there is at least one ball at the right side...
Also you could slow the wheel down or stop it, so
one ball will always be at 4x distance at the right side...
G'day Stefan,
How will you get the extra ball there??
Hans von Lieven
Hans, you still have not accounted for z travel forces.
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 08:44:13 PM
Humbugger, I never swore at anyone. But to deny a fact is just that. A denial
of the true potential.
---
Also, curious if we remove some ball load chambers what will happen:
I do want to chime in on this bit. In Chas's device, it is impossible for the balls to impart their momentum to the wheel, because each ball bumps into the balls in front of it, which in turn bump into the catch. You cannot remove the catch from the equation, because a ball cannot enter the ramp at any time - there has to be a receptacle for it. You also cannot reduce the number of balls, because it takes time for the ball to roll down the ramp and get into position.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 08:56:17 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 08:47:34 PM
Stefan
Your error is simple. There is never a time when two balls are on the right side if the radius is 4. Some of the time, there is no ball on the right side in any configuration based on 30 degrees and over 3.8763 radius.
I have been saying this all along but you have not heard or understood.
Hum
Hum,
you could build a wheel always so that there is at least one ball at the right side...
Also you could slow the wheel down or stop it, so
one ball will always be at 4x distance at the right side...
Wrong! Please just go and look at the diagram i drew. If the radius is greater than 3.8763, there will be times when no ball is on the right. There will never be two balls on the right.Hum
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099)
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 08:53:12 PM
G'day again,
Picture 1 shows exactly what I am talking about. The ball on the right moves in a 26.2 degree arc, therefore on any other concentric circle the movement is 26.2 degrees, insufficient to load the next ball, which requires 30 degrees. It does not matter how much force you have, the movement stops at 26.2 degrees because that is when the ball that does the work leaves the system. At this point the system reverses.
Hans von Lieven
But you have a 3.9 to 3.6 advantage from the torque arms that is stored as energy in
the big (fly)wheel, so the missing 30 - 26.2= 3.8 degrees are easily pulled up....
G'day Stefan,
No, they are not, the moment the working ball leaves the system the system has zero force on the working side ant the full force of ALL the other balls on the other side of the balance. There is no way you can store that much energy in the system with only one ball to drive it.
As to zero's travel forces, there aren't any. While the ball rolls down the ramp it does not contribute to the motion of the wheel, in fact is loses force through friction.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 08:23:09 PM
Hans, if you say that there is no more potential in such a manor, then
either you are a LIAR, or you have not looked at the device in motion and
do not understand what I am talking about.
It doesn't turn much, and it doesn't seem it would turn much more if fine tuned either.
Vis3r, lets see HANS's math behind the 3d slope picture i put up before
we get so confident...
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 09:01:22 PM
Wrong! Please just go and look at the diagram i drew. If the radius is greater than 3.8763, there will be times when no ball is on the right.
Please show this in a drawing.
I don?t see that.
Please use 8 balls.
The wheel can always be stopped for a period, so there is enough time
for the ball roll also 10 times as far away from the axis !
Also there is a unit, I don?t remember how it is called, where 2 balls are started at the same height,
rolling down a small long incline..
and one ball is rolling then in a deeper slope and thus getting faster speed and when it comes
up again to the higher level it leaves the track earlier than the other one.
Both had the same potential energy level when the track was finished, but one
ball left it earlier, so this device could be used to speed up the balls speed to get to the 4x distance !
Also, couldnt a Smot type of one way magnetics setup also provide upwards thrust
potential?
So all,
I am tired now and going to bed,
well, looking forward to a calculation from Hans...
G'day Stefan,
The moment you stop the wheel you are going to lose the little bit of inertia that you had at that point, I cannot see how that would help.
Hans von Lieven
Good night Stefan,
It's been fun
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 09:12:24 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 09:01:22 PM
Wrong! Please just go and look at the diagram i drew. If the radius is greater than 3.8763, there will be times when no ball is on the right.
Please show this in a drawing.
I don?t see that.
Please use 8 balls.
The wheel can always be stopped for a period, so there is enough time
for the ball roll also 10 times as far away from the axis !
Also there is a unit, I don?t remember how it is called, where 2 balls are started at the same height,
rolling down a small long incline..
and one ball is rolling then in a deeper slope and thus getting faster speed and when it comes
up again to the higher level it leaves the track earlier than the other one.
Both had the same potential energy level when the track was finished, but one
ball left it earlier, so this device could be used to speed up the balls speed to get to the 4x distance !
Speed has nothing to do with this discussion at this point. I already drew the drawing. It has eight balls.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099)
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 09:12:24 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 09:01:22 PM
Wrong! Please just go and look at the diagram i drew. If the radius is greater than 3.8763, there will be times when no ball is on the right.
Please show this in a drawing.
I don?t see that.
Please use 8 balls.
The wheel can always be stopped for a period, so there is enough time
for the ball roll also 10 times as far away from the axis !
Also there is a unit, I don?t remember how it is called, where 2 balls are started at the same height,
rolling down a small long incline..
and one ball is rolling then in a deeper slope and thus getting faster speed and when it comes
up again to the higher level it leaves the track earlier than the other one.
Both had the same potential energy level when the track was finished, but one
ball left it earlier, so this device could be used to speed up the balls speed to get to the 4x distance !
the steeper slope is shorter, the balls would both land the same distance away once they left the track, with correction for friction on the longer run
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 08:28:05 PM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 08:15:24 PM
G'day Stefan,
You are still stuck with the basic problem and that is how to rotate the entire assembly 30 degrees to bring the next ball into play when you only have 27 degrees or less to play with and only one ball to do it with. The potential energy in the system does not change with a 3 dimensional arrangement or any other arrangement.
Incidentally zero, I am a qualified engineer, physics major at that :-)
Hans von Lieven
Then why don?t you calculate the torque arms ?
Where is my error in my calculation ?
Here it is once again:
2 balls 0.5 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
2 balls 0.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.6 units
1 ball 1.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
====================================
sum= 3.6 units
On the right side we have then only for 2 x 15 degrees:
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
Divided by 2 cause only for 30 instead of 60 degres rotation
we still have a 3.9 versus 3.6 advantage.
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
for 2 balls to be on the 4x arm... they would both be at 15 degrees off center.. not one 15 degrees off from each other, were working with a 30 degree seperation from each other, there would be no way for 1 ball to be at 4
2 balls at 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 7.6
divide by 2 = 3.6
3.6 = 3.6
I think we wasted 5 pages for that?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D1513.0%3Battach%3D3183%3Bimage&hash=a1054852177b9b4c8e896ddbd92ed230883488f9)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1513.0.html
G'day again
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 09:16:02 PM
Also, couldnt a Smot type of one way magnetics setup also provide upwards thrust
potential?
On that one you are right zero, the system clearly needs an injection of energy from somewhere in order to function
Hans von Lieven
??? 7.6 / 2= 3.8...
YOu are probably tired too..
I have no excuse, it's only 9:30pm here :(
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 09:34:21 PM
??? 7.6 / 2= 3.8...
YOu are probably tired too..
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 08:28:05 PM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 08:15:24 PM
G'day Stefan,
You are still stuck with the basic problem and that is how to rotate the entire assembly 30 degrees to bring the next ball into play when you only have 27 degrees or less to play with and only one ball to do it with. The potential energy in the system does not change with a 3 dimensional arrangement or any other arrangement.
Incidentally zero, I am a qualified engineer, physics major at that :-)
Hans von Lieven
Then why don?t you calculate the torque arms ?
Where is my error in my calculation ?
Here it is once again:
2 balls 0.5 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
2 balls 0.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.6 units
1 ball 1.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
====================================
sum= 3.6 units
On the right side we have then only for 2 x 15 degrees:
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
Divided by 2 cause only for 30 instead of 60 degres rotation
we still have a 3.9 versus 3.6 advantage.
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
for 2 balls to be on the 4x arm... they would both be at 15 degrees off center.. not one 15 degrees off from each other, were working with a 30 degree seperation from each other, there would be no way for 1 ball to be at 4
2 balls at 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 7.6
divide by 2 = 3.6
3.6 = 3.6
I think we wasted 5 pages for that?
@rMuD and Stefan
Nobody understands I guess.
YOU CAN'T GET TWO BALLS ON THE RIGHT SIDE AT ANY TIME IF THE WHEEL IS 4/1 RATIO. THE BEST YOU WILL HAVE IS ONE; SOMETIMES NONE.Sleep on it...look at it again tomorrow...I'm not crazy...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099)
Guten Nacht,
Humbugger
Just in case it was misunderstood, heres a 3d and side view.
Also, there is the idea of trying to change the angle of decent to
a steeper angle for more power.. And or to give more width to the
unit - thus increasing the time where the ball can generate more
speed.
However, I think its probably best just to keep it
narrow, and increase the drop angle.
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 09:49:01 PM
Just in case it was misunderstood, heres a 3d and side view.
Also, there is the idea of trying to change the angle of decent to
a steeper angle for more power.. And or to give more width to the
unit - thus increasing the time where the ball can generate more
speed.
However, I think its probably best just to keep it
narrow, and increase the drop angle.
I am guessing you are a stubborn enough optimist that you will have to build it (maybe several times) to prove to yourself it does not work. Oh well! You're in the right place for that kind of thinking. It's the norm here. Best of luck to you. I'm old and haven't that much time on my hands, so I'm probably just a wee bit jealous of the luxury.
Humbugger
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 07, 2007, 08:28:05 PM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 07, 2007, 08:15:24 PM
G'day Stefan,
You are still stuck with the basic problem and that is how to rotate the entire assembly 30 degrees to bring the next ball into play when you only have 27 degrees or less to play with and only one ball to do it with. The potential energy in the system does not change with a 3 dimensional arrangement or any other arrangement.
Incidentally zero, I am a qualified engineer, physics major at that :-)
Hans von Lieven
Then why don?t you calculate the torque arms ?
Where is my error in my calculation ?
Here it is once again:
2 balls 0.5 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
2 balls 0.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.6 units
1 ball 1.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
====================================
sum= 3.6 units
On the right side we have then only for 2 x 15 degrees:
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
Divided by 2 cause only for 30 instead of 60 degres rotation
we still have a 3.9 versus 3.6 advantage.
1 ball 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 3.8 units
1 ball 4.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 4.0 units
===================================
sum= 7.8 units
for 2 balls to be on the 4x arm... they would both be at 15 degrees off center.. not one 15 degrees off from each other, were working with a 30 degree seperation from each other, there would be no way for 1 ball to be at 4
2 balls at 3.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 7.6
divide by 2 = 3.6
3.6 = 3.6
I think we wasted 5 pages for that?
so it 's really 3.8, but it's not
at 3.8763x the size is 30 degrees 4:1 is less than 30 degrees
there are never more than 1 ball in the system + the > 10% of the time there is a -3.6
3.6 : 1.64
if we did balls every 15 degree it would be around 7.0 : 3.9 (guess)
rMuD hurrah! I knew you'd gotten it! Thank you!
Maybe our fearless but sleep-deprived moderator will see it all in his dreams...
At anything above 3.8763, the lower ball is off the wheel BEFORE the upper ball comes on the wheel!
ok...I guess I'm off to whip the children, kick the dog, beat the wife, smoke a hemp cigar, get drunk and get arrested...all is well...someone gets it!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Humbugger
Actually, It does have a slope. Just watch the Vid and you can
see it very clearly. Maybe 30 degrees. However, adding more
slope could increase the power even more.
Here you can see the current setup of a Diag. force on the wheel
from the ball... and my Idea for a slight mod which changes the
force to complete Down Force by use of a slight curve and a
straight path. That should amplify the force even more.
After looking at Chas's wheel, it seems no different than:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.strangehorizons.com%2F2002%2F20020819%2Ffirst.jpg&hash=63e5ffdcbbeeeffeeba963c62c10bf2252c9806f)
or:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lightandmatter.com%2Fhtml_books%2F2cl%2Fch01%2Ffigs%2Fperpetual-motion-arms.png&hash=dacd774c6e12a35c00b87bb05095efd6488cbb1e)
The concept is similar...
Except that your picture does not truely represent the weight path.
Pic shows the path too wide and too circular.
It also does not consider the balls rolling at angles as I posted above.
Deja Vu with a new dress on
Humbugger
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 10:20:05 PM
Actually, It does have a slope. Just watch the Vid and you can
see it very clearly. Maybe 30 degrees. However, adding more
slope could increase the power even more.
Here you can see the current setup of a Diag. force on the wheel
from the ball... and my Idea for a slight mod which changes the
force to complete Down Force by use of a slight curve and a
straight path. That should amplify the force even more.
your acceleration is cancelled out with the fact your not putting any work into the machine for the distance it's falling, so your just building potential energy that you'd have if you put the work into the device at the earliest point. Gravity is a constant by dropping it, rolling it, slanting it, whatever.. your not going to gain any extra work into the device.. if this was the case we would of had a "Free" energy device long before Oil or MIB could ever be blamed for supressing,,, we'd have a wheel of sledge hammers in every house.
I dont think you know what your talking about.
The work starts the second that the ball is on the PVC ramp,
as thats when the weight is being transfered.
As a bonus, the ball pics up speed and energy from the slope, and adds
to the work by pushing the wheel when the ball hits the
waiting 'stop'.
The device is traveling a certain rate. Not at true gravity
potential. By adding more gravity energy into the mix, it
adds to the energy of the wheels rotation.
If the wheel was moving at max potential I might agree..
however that wont happen because the ballance will
never be such that will allow that.
So, any additional power will cover any losses that would
prevent continuous revolutions.
Its equivalent to going half speed in a bumper car, and
then someones car (ball) hits you from behind at a much
faster rate of speed. Your car will surge forwards at
a faster pace upon impact energy transfer.
Quote from: rMuD on September 07, 2007, 11:22:15 PM
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 10:20:05 PM
Actually, It does have a slope. Just watch the Vid and you can
see it very clearly. Maybe 30 degrees. However, adding more
slope could increase the power even more.
Here you can see the current setup of a Diag. force on the wheel
from the ball... and my Idea for a slight mod which changes the
force to complete Down Force by use of a slight curve and a
straight path. That should amplify the force even more.
your acceleration is cancelled out with the fact your not putting any work into the machine for the distance it's falling, so your just building potential energy that you'd have if you put the work into the device at the earliest point. Gravity is a constant by dropping it, rolling it, slanting it, whatever.. your not going to gain any extra work into the device.. if this was the case we would of had a "Free" energy device long before Oil or MIB could ever be blamed for supressing,,, we'd have a wheel of sledge hammers in every house.
You mean you ain't got one? I could never sleep without the constant thumping of those basement sledgehammers. So how do you run your clock then?
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 11:51:23 PM
The work starts the second that the ball is on the PVC ramp,
as thats when the weight is being transfered.
As a bonus, the ball pics up speed and energy from the slope, and adds
to the work by pushing the wheel when the ball hits the
waiting 'stop'.
But the ball does not push the wheel when it hits the queue. It only impacts the middle apparatus, which does not rotate.
Also, technically, the ball does not do any work while travelling down the ramp, aside from overcoming friction.
After the ball rolls down the ramp, it hits a metal landing which is attached
to the part of the wheel that rotates.
The center part of the wheel that does not move keeps the ball locked
in place. However, the impact does occur at the wheel first.
Good morning and evening guys, great to see the board going hard. I expected by the time i got up this morning you guys would have solved th energy crisis ;D
Okay, Probably better if i get the original measurements/distances on the 15th for you all,
Guys attached is another open sourced R and D Circuit given to us by a good friend of mine for Cha's alternator designed to be run with the RV
" Attached is a simple circuit that will control the generator On or Off, or if you use a clutch you can switch this in or out when the PM is overloaded.
So from Jaycar, just get a 5amp shunt and connect across this a little transformer backwards so the very low voltage is boosted higher so this can drive the transistor.
When the current begins to climb at the PM, this will switch the transistor, which trips the 555ic which has an adjustable timer, that then will activate the relay as to turn off the generator or whatever.
The 9volt battery can be replaced by using a small transformer if you want to power the circuit differently.
This little circuit would also be great for automatically switching off a start cap, or control anything you want if the current consumption begins to get higher than what is required.
Hmmm, with a number of these circuits using just the one shunt, you could have it automatically switch any of the pre-determined run caps so the RV is kept in constant tune whatever the load.
Raivo, should be able to improve this with a programmable chip."
Quote from: zero on September 07, 2007, 11:51:23 PM
I dont think you know what your talking about.
The work starts the second that the ball is on the PVC ramp,
as thats when the weight is being transfered.
If it was adding any work to the device, it wouldn't be rolling down the ramp or falling at a faster rate... maybe on a slant it would be 1/2 working 1/2 falling..
Precisely Hum,
Isn't that what I have been saying all along??
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 10:14:41 PM
At anything above 3.8763, the lower ball is off the wheel BEFORE the upper ball comes on the wheel!
Humbugger
Hans von Lieven
rmud,
It doesnt matter.
If you roll a bowling ball down a wheelchair ramp while the entire ground sinks slowly into lava...
you are still effecting the ramps decent by the gravity pulling against the ball.
Flat surface or not. Rolling or not. As long as there is contact with the surface,
gravity is pulling it down.
The big difference here, is how you can make the ramp sink into the lava more
quickly, by making the balls path change to a more vertical decent.. and to
use the balls acquired speed... to smash into the ramp much harder.
(by hitting a stop which is connected to the sinking ramp)
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 08, 2007, 12:23:10 AM
Precisely Hum,
Isn't that what I have been saying all along??
Quote from: Humbugger on September 07, 2007, 10:14:41 PM
At anything above 3.8763, the lower ball is off the wheel BEFORE the upper ball comes on the wheel!
Humbugger
Hans von Lieven
To be honest, I didn't quite understand your approach and I don't recall you quoting the magic 3.8763 number before just now. But I respect your physics knowledge and realize there are twelve ways to state a proof. I'm a more strictly intuitive guy when it comes to mechanical stuff...electronics is my area of most experience...no formal education either! Just 40 years of working with millionaire entrepreneurs and ARPA-funded R&D labs associated with UC Boulder Physics Electro-optics.
Glad our different approaches meet in the middle! I've enjoyed your posts. A good mix of skepticism, tact, knowing when to tread lightly (my weak spot) and of course that underlying inkling that there really is a lot we don't know yet.
I do so respect your knowing that the future worthy developments won't come from putting lipstick on a pig that's been roasted and served up dead a thousand times before. It's rare around here.
I don't think Stefan ever quite got what I was trying to say...maybe he is more likely to listen to your approach. He's a puzzle to me at times.
Today's frenzy the most scientific discussion with the most people at the fastest pace I've been involved in online! Really sort of awkward on an internet forum, but highly enjoyable. I learned how to post a drawing...yeeehaaaa!
Humbugger
G'day Hum,
I never quoted the 3.8763 number, I merely stated that there was not enough arc at a distance of 4 to bring the next ball into play.
Same thing though, isn't it?
PS. I enjoy your posts too.
Hans von Lieven
This sknooker wheel will never work, beleave it. DON'T TRUST UNFINISHED DEMO-UNITS.
@Zero: Each energy-gain out of bumping against something needs more speed which needs more hight at starting position which has to be charged first.
@Stefan: If you have a wheel with 1000 Balls and you have a proper configuration and enough space for the balls to rest on the levels, you can let the wheel turn a long time until the upper level runs out of balls or the lower level gets into a jam.
In case of having fixed and same degrees on the inner and outer circle for the balls and/or multiple revolutions, it will even don't do that. It will come to a rest short before the first ball is back up again, because of the friction and losses. In best case you have a system converting kinetic energy stored in balls on the upper level into rotation until it is balanced out. It will not gain additional energy. You will soon have problems to lift up enough balls back again.
Maybe your torque calculations are correct (i don't read them). But only when you have no losses. In practice you have losses, it comes back up again max. 99% and then rests, even when balls still available above. And it often will not do that, because the torque is not always the same, because the balls fall in and out (pulsating), and torque is only max. at 90? to the axle - factor is sin(angle).
In other words: Additional torque on the way down falls together with shorter lift = same work. Indeed one ball on the left has more torque than one ball on the right. But it should turn x-times longer, to lift up the right ball completely. The right ball on the inner circle draws x-times the angle of the covered portion of the outer circle, where the additional torque occurs. So all "overunity" is compensated by ratio. Its nothing else than a gear-box. The gear-ratio are the diameters-ratio.
Game Over.
1 week from today, there will be a few people there, manually load the device, and prevent it from dropping balls... and it will be confirmed.. I have no doubt with the basic math of newton's 2nd law equation that it will be in equalibrium.. we spoke of pennies on a cardboard disc, we've shown in pictures... as much as we can wish this to work... there is no zero point, there is no "impact" energy gained.. it's all basic 5th grade newtonian math going on here.. there is no force, extraction, or anything that hasn't been tried for the past 3000 years with this, nothing is different..
THE ONLY WAY THIS DEVICE WILL MOVE IS IF A BALL FALLS OFF THE TRACK ON THE UP SWING, 2X 3X 4X 1000X
ps: will the "MIB" and/or The Oil Companies please send me my T-Shirt and my badge
Chas states you cant load this wheel, he has an engineer going over there to fix the wobbling in a few days, and he is going to attach just a magnet and position a copper coil if he gets it working.
Quote from: rMuD on September 08, 2007, 03:14:50 AM
1 week from today, there will be a few people there, manually load the device, and prevent it from dropping balls... and it will be confirmed.. I have no doubt with the basic math of newton's 2nd law equation that it will be in equalibrium.. we spoke of pennies on a cardboard disc, we've shown in pictures... as much as we can wish this to work... there is no zero point, there is no "impact" energy gained.. it's all basic 5th grade newtonian math going on here.. there is no force, extraction, or anything that hasn't been tried for the past 3000 years with this, nothing is different..
THE ONLY WAY THIS DEVICE WILL MOVE IS IF A BALL FALLS OFF THE TRACK ON THE UP SWING, 2X 3X 4X 1000X
ps: will the "MIB" and/or The Oil Companies please send me my T-Shirt and my badge
Your order is being processed as I write. For cover purposes, I must pretend momentarily that I do not have you fully imaged and tracked at all times...therefore, for public consumption, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT SIZE YOU WEAR. Oh...about the badge...
Badges? We don got no badges. You got badges? We got no badges. We don need no stinkin badges!
GEE ~ BALLS FALLING OFF? SEEMS I SAW A LOT OF THAT ON A CERTAIN VIDEO SOMEWHERE ~
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 08, 2007, 03:20:31 AM
Chas states you cant load this wheel, he has an engineer going over there to fix the wobbling in a few days, and he is going to attach just a magnet and position a copper coil if he gets it working.
change the gravity on the upswing, you got a chance.. I hope for the best.. if it's half working please use human effort to simulate the gates, as that can be solved, as long as it doesn't involve lifting balls, or putting force down...
Quote from: Humbugger on September 08, 2007, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: rMuD on September 08, 2007, 03:14:50 AM
1 week from today, there will be a few people there, manually load the device, and prevent it from dropping balls... and it will be confirmed.. I have no doubt with the basic math of newton's 2nd law equation that it will be in equalibrium.. we spoke of pennies on a cardboard disc, we've shown in pictures... as much as we can wish this to work... there is no zero point, there is no "impact" energy gained.. it's all basic 5th grade newtonian math going on here.. there is no force, extraction, or anything that hasn't been tried for the past 3000 years with this, nothing is different..
THE ONLY WAY THIS DEVICE WILL MOVE IS IF A BALL FALLS OFF THE TRACK ON THE UP SWING, 2X 3X 4X 1000X
ps: will the "MIB" and/or The Oil Companies please send me my T-Shirt and my badge
Your order is being processed as I write. For cover purposes, I must pretend momentarily that I do not have you fully imaged and tracked at all times...therefore, for public consumption, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT SIZE YOU WEAR. Oh...about the badge...
Badges? We don got no badges. You got badges? We got no badges. We don need no stinkin badges!
GEE ~ BALLS FALLING OFF? SEEMS I SAW A LOT OF THAT ON A CERTAIN VIDEO SOMEWHERE ~
that's like the money scam where you give subtract divide add.. and the # is 1 off the value you think it should be... I was looking for that for hours today.. is this how the other device works :)
MIB have badges... otherwise no experimenter would ever believe we were for real.. I see you havn't fought hard enough for the MIB to give you a official badge yet... very disappointed
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 08, 2007, 03:20:31 AM
Chas states you cant load this wheel, he has an engineer going over there to fix the wobbling in a few days, and he is going to attach just a magnet and position a copper coil if he gets it working.
Is there any technology you work with that actually
can be loaded? I've begun to really wonder.
No need to drop everything to respond...just a good natured ribbing from a tired and wrinkled old man in the far back seat...
the humming bugger
@asthweth: The only thing which could still make sence, is to friendly ask Chas for the original device from his CD. This is his running system. But i asume its not open-source now. Maybe he wants to give it to his children as inheritance. Any further investigation in the snookers-wheel or the flywheels are a waste of time, besides the fact, that it teaches a lot.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 07, 2007, 09:19:30 AM
HI Jim the video is PUBLIC knowledge feel free to upload it to where ever, i couldn't upload to google video as it times out ???
We will soon be uploading our water fuel cell replication and self running neon switching RV demos
all open sourced [plans and videos]
36minute chas campbell video posted
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1539570760730776284&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1539570760730776284&hl=en)
thanks ESA you fawkn rawk my brother :-*
new circuit for his ALT, WFC, an RV neon coming...
Dear Ash,
I may be one of the few supporting you and Chas Campbell in this forum. I do not mind. Lee Cheung Kin and I did that for the Liang Xingren invention in China since 2004. Out of the over 2,000 posts, ours were the only ones supporting him.
Now, the Improved Liang invention in the form of the Chao Ching San car has been certified in China. The China Patent Office informed Liang that they would not object to his claiming "perpetual motion machine is possible statement" - as our China Patents stated that gravitational and electron motion energy could be LEAD OUT. There were NO violation of CoE.
Most forum members used the CoP objection. Most of them did not understand the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory. The Chas Campbell gravity wheel with the balls could work because it has coupling of two systems. The first system is the big wheel where the dropping balls provide the pulse force. This will always turn the big wheel and more importantly, LEAD OUT gravitational energy. The second system is the ball return system driven by a loosely coupled torque from the first system. Properly designed and implemented, it is theoretically possible for the LEAD OUT gravitational energy to exceed loss due to friction etc.
I shall wait for the many bullets or cannon balls to hit this post. I shall hide in the http://forum.go-here.com.nl where I have moderator privilege or in the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory thread:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.0.html
I shall charge out after the Chas Campbell Electricity Magnifier information is out. I have absolute confidence in that device, as I know the superior one at Tsing Hua University. So do not lose heart.
Lawrence Tseung
Knowledge of Superior Device Leads Out Total Support for Chas Campbell.
Congratulations to Chas, Ash and the camerman for a fine video........thumbs up 8)
I cringe at the thought of even attempting to replicate Chas' wheel
I'll respect and salute the next guy on this fine forum who will consider an attempt to build an (improved) version of Chas' gravity wheel :-\
I've had my own bad $$ replication experiance in the past and don't wish to ever again unless it's cheap and simple
thanx esarhuoho for google video
Son of a gun Chas, how many decades did you work on this wheel?
Wow, what are all these posts - Chas Week? OK you guys. I think it's better we discuss all this around a pool table with a nice scotch and put them billiard balls to real use. lol. Also, good work, you guys broke the record in concecutive posts under one topic, or did SM win this 20 times already, can't remember.
The main start off of making a perpetual wheel is having the wheel perfectly balanced without the balls. Looking at Chas' wheel, I feel it will be very difficult to balance it properly because you have to be able to remove the wheel, have it rotate on a balancing device at least at 300 rpms to then identify the off balance points and to correct them and turn again, repeated until you have a perfectly balanced wheel. Until this is done, there is no point to continue further, since you will be fighting against the mass off balance. This is probably why the wheel is turning now. One side is off and is creating the turning illusion as if the balls are doing the work, but as soon as you get to the other side, it stops. Even the most perfectly cut wheel needs balancing.
Now supposing the wheel is perfectly balanced and there are no connecting arms, levers or other things connected or attached to the wheel, only the wheel on the base, then with a good arms pull it should turn for a very long time before it comes to a stop. The base should be strong enough to withstand such turning as this makes sure the base will NOT MOVE while the wheel is in its regular motion or else you lose again.
Now supposing the wheel is perfectly balanced, sturdy base and the added components provide the least resistance to the wheel possible, then you can add the balls.
The total weight difference of the balls versus the total weight of the turning wheel must not be to great otherwise there will not be enough shift in ball mass to move the wheel mass. So, the billiard balls may be too light.
Chas' design is interesting and his solution to the problem of right weight shift is clever.
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.
Guys, don't start doing your calculations again. I just put this up quickly to show Chas that his idea could be extended in other ways.
Good work Chas. You're an inspiration and I am sure your design will help in the grand scheme of things.
@Hum
Rearding your right angle question. If you put a large right angle triangle under the top ones, you will notice yours is not perfectly straight, so there is an excess there. Then put the large triangle above the bottom ones and you will see it is not perfectly straight hence more excess. Add the excess together and you get the empty space you are showing. Simple.
Quote from: wattsup on September 08, 2007, 10:20:17 AM
Chas' design is interesting and his solution to the problem of right weight shift is clever.
I think the design is a little bit clever, but I do not understand how even a cursory look a the drawing board would not set off a light bulb in Chas's head that his gravity wheel is pretty much like every other gravity wheel in history that does not work. I am talking about all the devices that have flaps or hammers or shifting sand or balls on slanted or curved shelves or whatever. They all try to produce motion by leverage, and they all fail for the exact same reason, which I do not need to repeat here. I am also amazed as to why he did not try to get a smaller model built and working first. At least he could have converted it to a neat desktoy by adding a battery to help the balls out.
He said he had fun doing it, and I am no one to deny a man his fun, but he did not break any new ground here.
Quote from: wattsup on September 08, 2007, 10:20:17 AM
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
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.
Quote from: wattsup on September 08, 2007, 10:20:17 AM
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.
G'day all,
Patrick Kelly from Panacea has just send me the following diagram, which is his take on the Chas Campbell system.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fchascampbell.bmp&hash=1f289a7d9d65f0b3599cfbf2be66727c893f3a50)
Forwarded without comment at this stage
Hans von Lieven
@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
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
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!
Hi Lawrence and all,
Thank you Lawrence we will be attaching that to our presentation of this system, depsite Chas not have a refined system and or a working system ATM, there are still many themes and benefits we can attain from this whole experience, and that data you provided needs to make it to the light and day so does all the other gravity theorems/devices mentioned so far and the response Chas got. Plus How you and Chas need endorsement and investigation /support.
This is what we will be putting into a presentation i order to help the public and faculties 'catch up'
Our production which will have further testing results (we will still post only the results on the board later)
BTW for tinkers here are some private email is got on the subject.
"Hi Ash,
I do not think this system works. There cannot be a simple thing that
hasn't be thought to before. What does the physics say about it?
Lets approximate - outer ring is 2x bigger than the inner.
Thus to raise the ball up takes 2x times longer, that makes the system
energy balanced.
Momentum x time = energy: down = M x R x t
Momentum x time = energy: up = M x r x 2t = M x R/2 x 2t = M x R x t
Did he show a solid proof that the ball that went down, came up again by
its own momentum without the rotor being touched?
It can only work when there is some rotational gravitational effect or
anomaly.
/
H: OU is transformation. Energy must come from somewhere. Gravity is not
an energy. Earth rotational momentum is the energy that can be tapped but
by normal physics it is very tiny (using big and fast gyros)."
Answer
"wrong...
To raise the ball with inner radius takes exactly the same amount of
time than to drop a ball with outer radius as the wheel is uniform and
all parts of the wheel are moving in synchronicity.
Also, he talked about the experiment with ball and aluminium profile:
if you put a profile's one end to ground and lift the other end few
inches and then put the ball on this elevated end, the ball starts to
roll down the slope and accelerate. He said, that at certain distance
the ball has enough energy, that when it's course is directed properly,
it can come up to the initial level again... (or something like that I
understood).
It is actually quite logical:
1. energy required to lift the ball directly up to certain height Ep=m*g*h
2. now we need to calculate the ball's kinetic energy on the slope at
certain distance from the beginning (hmm, need to dig some old physics
book in order to calculate that). The trick is, that the kinetic energy
grows with the square of velocity, so at certain distance from the
slope's beginning the ball's speed should be sufficient and the
Ek=(m*v*v)/2 should overcome the Ep=m*g*h (the square always grows
faster than the simple multiplication) and we can direct the ball
upwards with certain means and voila... Hehe, hopefully I'm not grossly
mistaken here...
Also, if you take into account the law of conservation of momentum,
things might get even more interesting.
An experiment: sit on a rotatable chair, take two beer sixpacks, one to
your each hand and strech/lift the arms to the side so that you are now
holding the sixpacks 90 deg from your body. Let your wife to rotate you
(or get the cair to rotate with your legs), when you keep the sixpacks
at the same position (now you and streched sixpacks are all rotating
with the chair). Now, while rotating, try to pull the sixpacks towards
your body. Uhh, what happens??? Your rotation speeds up considerably...
Now think about the ball, that has come down some slope and has
considerable kinetic energy. It is always said, that the best way to
utilize such energy is to transform it maximally smoothly (a la tesla
turbine with fluids moving in spiral from perimeter to center opening).
Do the same thing with your ball - direct it onto a circular track, that
is built like cone. At the base the radius should be big and when the
track now rises, the radius should also get smaller and smaller all the
time (the change might not be linear...). Now the ball, as it rises on
the track, is further accelerated by this same conservation of momentum
law and should rise more easily...
This is just an idea and needs to be checked out with suitably rigid
tube and nice heavy steel balls."
Answer two
"what you are saying has much merit.
There are more forces and actions going on, where a person needs to look at the full picture.
Not only is there a lever action from the balls pulling the wheel around, BUT these have also gained kinetic energy where if they were to slip off, or I should say be released from the wheel they would fly out with velocity.!
The balls are not just dead weights. There weight is used to cause rotation but at the same time there is energy now stored in there mass from centrifugal force.
So from my perspective, I can see that we use gravity which is an ever increasing acceleration to create work, then at the right time using the energy stored in this mass to bring it back to the beginning of the cycle, all makes sense.
Put it this way.
What goes up must come down. So lets say we drop a ball from 10feet high, well it falls down and then bounces back up say 9feet.
Now think about this, where the ball drops 10feet but we tapped into this to create work, well that's great but don't forget we have also put the ball now into a centrifugal force at the same time.
What I am trying to say is this effect is the same thing where they fling satellites around planets, to gain kinetic energy for greater acceleration.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/34/space3.html
Maybe my imagination is way out there, but I am able to visualize gravity forces in conjunction with centrifugal forces where it must be possible to use gravity for one part of the cycle but use the generated centrifugal force for the net gains.
I mean if all was perfect and the energy gained as the ball drops was the same energy needed to take it back to the top again was needed,,, hey what about the fact we made this ball fall through a swing so it gained a bonus centrifugal force for free?"
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 07, 2007, 09:19:30 AM
HI Jim the video is PUBLIC knowledge feel free to upload it to where ever, i couldn't upload to google video as it times out ???
We will soon be uploading our water fuel cell replication and self running neon switching RV demosall open sourced [plans and videos]
I guess I must be the only one who noticed this. You have a self-running RV? Holy Moses man! Why in the world would you be fooling around with gravity wheels that don't quite work and non self-runner electrical machines that bog down if you have a self-running RV? You should focus on what works!
HEY! EVERYBODY! ASHTWETH HAS QUIETLY ANNOUNCED HE HAS A SELF-RUNNING RV SYSTEM! GATHER ROUND! HE'S UPLOADING THE PLANS AND VIDEO SOON!How much free energy does it produce? Wow! You are the master of understatement, dude! I never knew you had a working self-runner! What a surprise! You must now disclose all the details of course. I want to build a nice big one immediately!
Humbugger
Just to clarify for the Board as Hum you all know is talking to him self from now on when addressing me.
The self running Neon circuit has been reported by David Kou in France as working and is on the RV page, we have replicated the circuit and will be testing it on our RV next week. Attached is the circuit for those interested in it.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 08, 2007, 09:35:50 PM
The self running Neon circuit has been reported by David Kou in France as working and is on the RV page, we have replicated the circuit and will be testing it on our RV next week. Attached is the circuit for those interested in it.
Is he saying that someone in France has reportedly put together a working self-runner energy-producing system (where are the videos and reports on that?) or is it just some new electronic circuit that "works" which he and others are
hoping might make self-running possible? I can never quite tell what is really being said except when Ashtweth is hurling insults and accusing skeptics of being "oil men".
I assume it's just another hopeful magic circuit but it sure seems that efforts are being consciously made to make it sound like self-running has been achieved. I keep hearing claims, or what surely sound like claims, of self-running RV setups by Hector and this Kou fellow and these are reported to be folks who Ashtweth works with very closely and has for quite some time.
Why have we seen no video demonstration about these astonishing reports of self-running machines? Wouldn't that be far more worthy of Ashtweth's time than chasing after gravity wheels that don't turn and non-self-runners that can't stand a steady load for ten seconds? To be accused of wasting Ashtweth's time, which I have been on several recent occasions, seems rather unjustified in light of all this.
I prefer my information about major world-shaking scientific developments to be stated in unambiguous terms so that I know what is actually being said.
Humbugger
hi all , first of all please excuse my very bad edit of some one elses pic, but would this work ?.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 08, 2007, 09:03:00 PM
Hi Lawrence and all,
Thank you Lawrence we will be attaching that to our presentation of this system, depsite Chas not have a refined system and or a working system ATM, there are still many themes and benefits we can attain from this whole experience, and that data you provided needs to make it to the light and day so does all the other gravity theorems/devices mentioned so far and the response Chas got. Plus How you and Chas need endorsement and investigation /support.
Dear Ash,
You and your team have done an excellent job. I have seen the Chas Campbell gravity wheel video and I also have the dimensions of his Electricity Magnifier.
After careful review and discussions with others in China, we are very confident that we can improve both the Chas Campbell devices. I shall prepare
a full, detailed theoretical explanation of why his two devices are theoretically possible. We shall then outline the
many improvements that are possible under the prediction of the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory.
The Chas Campbell Electricity Magnifier is actually easier to implement and demonstrate. I have the unfair advantage of knowing the superior Tsing Hua Electricity Generator using cylinders. Lee and I already presented the theory at Tsing Hua University multiple times in late 2006. In one sentence, it is
Pulsed Rotation Leading Out Gravitational Energy.
Lee Cheung Kin and I shall meet some Chinese Officials next week. As you may know already,
China and Japan are extremely interested in alternative energy projects. If you do not object, I shall present the Chas Campbell devices to them. (We did that for Wang Shum Ho with good success.)
Keep up the good work. I am interested in your RV invention too.
Lawrence Tseung
International Cooperation Leads Out a better World for all.
Quote from: b0rg13 on September 08, 2007, 11:13:57 PM
hi all , first of all please excuse my very bad edit of some one elses pic, but would this work ?.
Unfortunately, no. Many have tried this design, and it is pretty much established that this cannot work. No matter how you design it, the balls on the left will always outweigh the balls on the right, even given the advantage of leverage. The wheel will not turn.
For crying out loud Lawrence, do you ever give up with this complete and utter bullshit of yours? Why don't you stick that the superior Tsing Hua Electricity Generator of yours where it may or may not cause an obstruction. I am tired of your arrogant attitude and superiorist (new word??) manner. I am certain I am not the only one.
Hans von Lieven
Hi Lawrence and Hans,
@ Han hang on a tick mate, lets see what we can make of this ;)
@ Lawrence
this i feel is objective as we want to assimilate R and D conditions towards an educational testing facility. The minster for energy here in Queensland will be going on record soon acknowledging yours and all these systems here, http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RandDprinciples.htm this we will be presenting to the public.
Yes, not much luck with the COP+1 system so far, but we got allot out of it, the letter on the Chas page is being updated and utilized plus the web page themes and the promotion have helped also. So all in all we have made some thing from it. Much more testing and understanding is still possible , plus further tests and improvements. The pulsed extraction circuits can come from this. Dont forget every thing is open sourced from US.
Plus the final production of the testing will be filmed soon with the needed themes and the reported working gravity machines (the yours, Milkovics and the new energy machine one) will be added with the Chas' R and D wheel. This is needed long with your R and D you mentioned, all theorems and current demonstrative gravity devices will be presented as a huge education political /themes presentation , to the faculties and the public.
Dont worry we dont let any interference intervene , 2000 people/oil men could of posted here with insults or skepticism mindless drivel, it wouldn't deter the logistics of the non profit organization i am working for.
@ all, am impressed with your spirits and R and D keep going, Chas is still working on improvements and appreciates his supporters, so you guys are doing great.
@ Ashtweth
You may be tarnishing your reputation and image here on the forum when you continually acknowledge and rub shoulders with Lawrence (Itseung888) ??? ??? ???
Quote from: sevich on September 09, 2007, 03:51:51 AM
You may be tarnishing your reputation and image here on the forum when you continually acknowledge and rub shoulders with Lawrence (Itseung888) ??? ??? ???
HAHAHAHA, what an idiot you are. Priceless.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 08, 2007, 09:03:00 PM
"Hi Ash,
I do not think this system works. There cannot be a simple thing that
hasn't be thought to before.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 04:20:50 AM
HAHAHAHA, what an idiot you are. Priceless.
Hmmm? no one told you not to talk again when shaving, dear Gabriela?
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 06:21:03 AM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 04:20:50 AM
HAHAHAHA, what an idiot you are. Priceless.
Hmmm? no one told you not to talk again when shaving, dear Gabriela?
Do remember to think of the harm to your credibility? Ow, I debunked that for you already. Now you are just a clue-less rant. Damn, don't you just hate it when that happens? Lets get back to the 100 questions you asked me when my instructions didn't ask any more of you as to put a magnet in each hand. You didn't pick up the 2 magnets but you asked 100 questions. Then you said you where going to do the 15 second experiment
this weekend. Debunkers are always full of excuses why they don't have time right now. So I want to know if you managed to lift up 2 magnets utilising your hands. Lets test if you are a honest individual. You seem rather dishonest and upset by the responses?
The weekend is here, where is your 15 seconds armchair rant? Your credibility is rapidly declining, lets see you try safe your precious reputation. hahahaha It's not so hard? Maybe you can ask mum to help? Let me spend 15 seconds adding the link for you again.
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/3-point-interaction
Now go be a good teenager and go do your homework before asking questions. ::)
This topic is about Chas it's not for you to vent your puberty.
Okay Guys...I know it might sound like hypocricy coming from me, but let's get back to the topic.
I think where we left off was around when Stefan stepped out of the whirlwind discussion on the torque and ball-count calculations for the gravity wheel. I tried numerous times to show that the calculations Stefan was making at a 4:1 ratio were in error because at that size there could never be two balls on the right side of the wheel. See post at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48099.html#msg48099)
I don't think Stefan quite ever understood what I was stating, although Hans and rMuD were saying the same thing in different ways. Stefan continued to ask me and others to calculate and draw using a 4:1 ratio and with two active balls on the right side of the wheel until he finally went to bed.
So, I'd like to ask Stefan and everyone else involved (rMuD and Hans have already posted their complete agreement with my statement that the system maxes out at 3.8763:1 ratio) if they understand this limitation yet or still think the system could be built with any ratio and always have at least one ball on the right side of the wheel. It can't. At any ratio bigger than 3.8763 there are times with no ball. Just turn the wheel a bit clockwise in your mind. See the 3:1 balls (solid color) and the 3.8763:1 balls (empty circles)? Even at 3:1, there's almost no time with two balls on the right.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48221.html#msg48221 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48221.html#msg48221) (Hans)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48185.html#msg48185 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48185.html#msg48185) (rMuD)
I thought we were pretty close to proving with simple straightforward torque calculations that the wheel will never cycle itself, except for this misunderstanding.
Humbugger
Quote
HAHAHAHA, what an idiot you are. Priceless.
@ garbage de wilde
You really should take your head out of Itseung's back side because being a "yes man" as you are won't help you at all either way Bro!
Lawrence (Itseung888) has had this forum and others like it on the longest perpetual motion TEASE in the history of the internet (second only to George Kunstler...oops, or maybe the other way around) But even If he has something that works, then the way he's gone about it with his "know all aproach" has done endless damage to his cause.....it's too late now, the damage is done!
Can the kids who were fighting over at the STeorn forum please go back there. Let's keep on topic.
@ Sevich, Gaby, Jimboot, Stefan
Do you guys see and understand what I'm trying to get across here? Divert your attention to the Charles wheel diagram for a moment and tell me what you each think about what I've posted just here.
Thanks,
Humbugger
Quote from: Jimboot on September 09, 2007, 07:57:21 AM
Can the kids who were fighting over at the STeorn forum please go back there. Let's keep on topic.
Exactly my point, but it's good to assault the skeptics sometimes.
They are here to defame the serious discussion after all.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 07:10:24 AM
I thought we were pretty close to proving with simple straightforward torque calculations that the wheel will never cycle itself, except for this misunderstanding.
No you have not even begun to suggest improvements. To make the leap of imagination your mind could fit around everything everyone else can think of is erroneous. It easy to show you you will never get your logic moving towards a goal like that.
So you want the exact same mass going up as going down with surplus energy left.
What modifications do you suggest to accomplish this?
Gaby demonstates that he was not following the earlier discussion where Stefan suggested that Charles's wheel could not work unless the ratio of outer radius to inner radius were larger than Charles 2:1 ratio. Stefan did simple torque arm math that convincingly showed this for the 2:1 case.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48064.html#msg48064 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48064.html#msg48064)
Others joined in, I among them, and an excellent discussion raged for an hour or more. I don't recall Gaby participating. One of the ideas proposed was that there was no limit on the ratio. Another was that there would always be at least one ball on the right side of the wheel no matter the size. Another was that there are times when two balls ride the right side when the ratio is 4:1.
All three of those assertions are untrue and I set out to show that. All of it simply leads to the conclusion, if the simple math is done correctly, that the torque moments are always equal and opposite for a full cycle.
This appears to be true even when we disregard all friction and we allow the balls the magical freedom to travel friction-free and with no applied motive force along unsloped ramps at any speed we want to imagine. In other words, even in an idealized setup, the wheel will not turn of its own power.
Humbugger
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 08:17:51 AM
@ Sevich, Gaby, Jimboot, Stefan
Do you guys see and understand what I'm trying to get across here? Divert your attention to the Charles wheel diagram for a moment and tell me what you each think about what I've posted just here.
Thanks,
Humbugger
What you have posted is correct, Hum.
For n=12 slots for balls, Rxet/Rint<3.8763
In the general case, Rint>=Rext*sin(pi/n)
Or, by extracting Rext results that: maximum Rext=Rint/(sin(pi/n))
According to the above, for Rint=1 and n=12, where n is the number of slots on the inner (smaller) wheel, it results that Rext = 3.8637, pretty close to your figure.
(Please check it again in Autocad if you can; there are the same 3 last digits, just mixed)
Anyway, replace Rint, Rext and n with any figure one may want and, voila, the result comes out.
However, the device is not working; it is hard to make a general demonstration valid in absolutely any conceivable case but once the main parameters are fixed (like the number of balls, Rint/Rext etc.) it results so.
Sorry for the bad news, good folks. :(
Tinu
P.S. Don?t bother gaby; he?s above us all; well above and out of this world?
On YouTube
Chas Campbell - Gravity Wheel - How It Works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67n40cD7AFw
Hi All,
can we please get back to the topic and not begin flame wars over here ?
Probably the skeptics are right, that this wheel can not work,
but I did not see anyone yet disprove my torque calculation with a
different calculation ?
So again,
where are my errors ?
The 3.8763:1 limit Humbuger suggest is just a design limit for a contineous
running wheel, but if you stop the wheel for a moment and let the new
upcoming ball run out to 4x distance so it has enough time to propel
the wheel there at 4:1 distance, then there is no 3.8763:1 limit !
So again,
can somebody show a torque calculation, where I was wrong ?
Please I only accept a torque calculation over all the involved 8 balls
in the system.
Thanks.
Tinu,
It could well be that the number Autocad gave me was off, coincidentally having the same digits, because at one point I scaled the drawing using an imprecise 0.3333 for 1/3.
"P.S. Don?t bother gaby; he?s above us all; well above and out of this world?"
[edit] [Later, I looked at this again and I realized that you were not referring to me as "he". You were referring to Gaby. In my defensive frame of mind of the moment, I saw a comma after the word "bother" and thought you were talking to Gaby about me. In any case, it gave me an opportunity to address those who do perceive me as being arrogant.]
Do I really come off as that arrogant? No wonder it's so hard for anyone to ever admit that I'm right! I'm truly saddened if that's what everyone thinks but I will stand on any fact I've stated anywhere in this forum. I have also frequently admitted that I have little or no expertise or knowledge in many areas. I do have a hard time restraining myself when people base scientific arguments on clearly false premises or when a blatant error in logic seems to be purposely and stubbornly ignored.
I only kick at castles made of sand. I guess that makes me look like a bully sometimes, but the tide will wash them away if I don't stomp them first. In my older age now, I'm usually more content to sit and watch them wash away in the sunset.
But if a flimsy-looking castle of sand has a huge sign on it proclaiming it to be totally indestructible and impervious to all kicking, and there is a guy selling tickets as if it were the ninth wonder of the world, I guess I just can't resist!
None of us has yet produced any free energy! We can all claim fallible mortal status on that accord.
Humbugger
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 09:38:30 AM
Hi All,
can we please get back to the topic and not begin flame wars over here ?
Probably the skeptics are right, that this wheel can not work,
but I did not see anyone yet disprove my torque calculation with a
different calculation ?
So again,
where are my errors ?
The 3.8763:1 limit Humbuger suggest is just a design limit for a contineous
running wheel, but if you stop the wheel for a moment and let the new
upcoming ball run out to 4x distance so it has enough time to propel
the wheel there at 4:1 distance, then there is no 3.8763:1 limit !
So again,
can somebody show a torque calculation, where I was wrong ?
Please I only accept a torque calculation over all the involved 8 balls
in the system.
Thanks.
The error was in the assumption that there was always at least one ball on the wheel at 4:1 (not the case) and most of your calculations showed two balls, which is never the case at any ratio above 3.8xxx no matter if the wheel is stopped or at any speed and even if the balls can travel instantaneously on the feed ramps.
It seems like you still don't see my point. If the wheel were 100 times larger and the ramps were level, there would almost never be a time when any ball was on the right side of the wheel even if the balls travelled on the ramps at light speed.
Your torque calculations failed to acknowledge that for a 4:1 ratio, there are brief times when no ball is on the right half of the wheel and there can never be two balls there. Stopping the wheel or travel speed of the balls on the ramp is not relevant.
Am i wrong?
Humbugger
Yes, Humbugger, you are wrong.
If you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again.
As you did not do any torque calculation yet and my 3.9 to 3.6 advantage still stands,
nobody has shown the error yet.
Quote from: b0rg13 on September 08, 2007, 11:13:57 PM
hi all , first of all please excuse my very bad edit of some one elses pic, but would this work ?.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2487.0%3Battach%3D12579&hash=e466c3c91d65a5eb55899810ff08a011bd22f04c)
Can we please have a torque calculation for this too ?
Maybe a few less yellow balls needs to be brought up at the
left side ?
With what gear ratio is the transport chain coupled to the wheel ?
Thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 10:17:16 AM
Yes, Humbugger, you are wrong.
If you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again.
As you did not do any torque calculation yet and my 3.9 to 3.6 advantage still stands,
nobody has shown the error yet.
And to prove your point Stefan, you should do the next logical step; Build the Wheel and show us all how right you are!
Peter
Stefan...
Forget all about the speed or stopping the wheel to wait for a ball. I already allowed for light-speed ball travel on the ramps.
There are physical ball receptacles spaced 30 degrees apart on the wheel. Whenever the vertical straight-line (chord) linear distance betwen those fixed physical receptacles is larger than the diameter of the center smaller lifting wheel (i.e. above 3.8xxx:1 ratio)...
There will be some period in which there is no ball on the outer wheel! This is because the lower ball receptacle has dumped its ball onto the lower ramp, but the next receptacle available for picking up a new ball (that we can assume is there waiting)...that empty receptacle has not yet arrived in place to receive a new ball from the upper feed ramp. So, for a moment, no balls on the outer weel.
As you make the ratio larger, the portion of time there is a ball on the outer wheel gets smaller. This is because the ramp feed and takeup positions can never be farther apart than the diameter of the center wheel or there would be no slope to induce travel. Yet the distance between the receptacle cups iof the outer wheel continues to get larger and larger, meaning more empty time.
ONLY CUPS WHICH ARE BELOW THE FEEDING RAMP AND ABOVE THE DUMPING OFF RAMP CAN HAVE A BALL IN THEM. IF THE DISTANCE BEWEEN CUPS IS BIGGER THAN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RAMPS, THERE WILL BE TIMES OF NO BALLS.
This is not wrong.
Get it? There isn't any point in doing a torque calculation if we cannot agree on the number of balls that will be on the right side, now, is there?
Humbugger
Quote from: tropes on September 09, 2007, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 10:17:16 AM
Yes, Humbugger, you are wrong.
If you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again.
As you did not do any torque calculation yet and my 3.9 to 3.6 advantage still stands,
nobody has shown the error yet.
And to prove your point Stefan, you should do the next logical step; Build the Wheel and show us all how right you are!
Peter
Peter,
Please don't leap in and make comments to piss off Stefan right now. I'm trying very hard to get him to see the point i am making. Snippy remarks will not help him grasp it.
Humbugger
Hi Ash,
if you will be at the 15th again at Chas?s house,
then please try to ask him to put all the ball in each holes
and see, if it starts itsself rotating.
Probably it will not do it.
Maybe he has found an effect where:
E kin= 0.5 x m x v^2 is not equal to E pot= m x g x h
So if a mass converts its stored energy due to its height h
and falls and hits a target,
then maybe it has more energy than E pot = m x g x h
predicts ?
This is probably what user zero has pointed out.
"Yes, Humbugger, you are wrong.
If you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again."
Bah, Humbug!
ONLY CUPS WHICH ARE BELOW THE FEEDING RAMP AND ABOVE THE DUMPING OFF RAMP CAN HAVE A BALL IN THEM. IF THE DISTANCE BEWEEN CUPS IS BIGGER THAN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RAMPS, THERE WILL BE TIMES OF NO BALLS.
There will be some period in which there is no ball on the outer wheel! This is because the lower ball receptacle has dumped its ball onto the lower ramp, but the next receptacle available for picking up a new ball (that we can assume is there waiting)...that empty receptacle has not yet arrived in place to receive a new ball from the upper feed ramp. So, for a moment, no balls on the outer wheel.
To keep always a ball on the wheel at 4:1, you would need to accellerate the wheel suddenly to infinite speed as soon as the lower ball left the wheel so that the new receptacle would be there to pick up the new ball just as the lower ball left its receptacle. Forget about the balls on the ramps...assume they are always there waiting.
This is not wrong. Stefan is simply pretending he doesn't understand. That is the only possible explanation. I refuse to believe he is stupid and I know it is correct and I believe I have explained very clearly.
Dear Ash,
I have attached Version 1.5 of the Chas Campbell Gravity Wheel document. It is modified from the TPU discussion document.
I included discussions with Chinese Officials from 3 different Cities and their consultants.
I shall modify and create new versions as we learn more. Hope the existing information is useful to you and Mr. Campbell.
Regards,
Lawrence Tseung
Please, before everyone leaps fully back into the land of total speculation and fantasy...
CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW THERE COULD BE ANY BALLS ON THE "BIGGER" WHEEL?[/b]
What if each ball had metal inside, and there was magnets placed stationary at 9 o'clock pulling the balls more inwards to the centre of hub?
The balls on the Campbell device are inside tubes that has plenty of room to move the balls at least a couple of cm.. maybe enough to make it run... you could also have magnets on the outer perimeter.. pressing the balls outwards.. that maybe could change the balancepoint up to 5 cm...
If the tubes was square instead of round, you would have more 'travel-distance' horisontally...
Just one thought... don't know if this would work..
Just like this... Red is magnet... of course.. :)
Okay...I give up. This is where the laughter breaks out as the arrogant professor tears out his hair and the plotting students roll on the floor at their successful crazy-making.
Stefan obviously is not stupid. Everyone can clearly see the point I have made is correct. Stefan pretends not to get it. Humbugger goes insane being told he is wrong by an authority figure when everyone can plainly see he is right.
LOL I get the joke. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D THIS HAS TO BE A JOKE.
okay, class is dismissed...time for humbugger to go kick the school mascot in the balls and bulldoze some sandcastles at the beach.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 10:34:03 AM
Peter,
Please don't leap in and make comments to piss off Stefan right now. I'm trying very hard to get him to see the point i am making. Snippy remarks will not help him grasp it.
Humbugger
Humbugger
Try to remember where you are. This is an open forum. You have no right to tell me what I can say to Stefan. My comments have nothing to do with you. If you insist on being a dictator you should start a forum where you are the boss and I will stay clear. Until then, mind your manners and save that arrogance for those over whom you have control.
Peter
@ all:
Well a good fix for some of the problems would be tubes instead of ramps for the balls to run in. No track hopping. Guy lines on the wheel to tension it to being rigid. Fun part, get the stuff and make one to scale for say a 1/2" ball bearing and see the results of it. If it does not fly, then tinker and see if it can be tweaked so it will. That is the thrill of the chase, no punn intended for shure. Some weight in the wheel to help keep it going, who knows.
The thing for me is, it has promise. So if it costs me a few bucks, think of the fun along the way. Just put up my new drafting table so guess it gets its first job scaling this thing.
thaelin. So like GK says, who needs sleep anyhow.
Ash: Tell chase he is a shaker, a mover etc. He went out and started doing it. :D
Quote from: tropes on September 09, 2007, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 10:34:03 AM
Peter,
Please don't leap in and make comments to piss off Stefan right now. I'm trying very hard to get him to see the point i am making. Snippy remarks will not help him grasp it.
Humbugger
Humbugger
Try to remember where you are. This is an open forum. You have no right to tell me what I can say to Stefan. My comments have nothing to do with you. If you insist on being a dictator you should start a forum where you are the boss and I will stay clear. Until then, mind your manners and save that arrogance for those over whom you have control.
Peter
Yes, I can see your point. However, do note that my very first word was "Please". I was not dictating, I was requesting politely. I apologize for any offense you took. That was not my intention.
"And to prove your point Stefan, you should do the next logical step; Build the Wheel and show us all how right you are!"
It seemed to me that your remark to Stefan was sarcastic. I may have misinterpreted that. Maybe you were actually suggesting that he should prove me wrong by building it. I don't know. It would be interesting to know if your remark was intended to be sarcastic.
Thank you. Humbugger
Quote from Campbell.doc of Mr. Tseung:
?Some Physicists might not even do the mathematics and conclude that these two objections would destroy all chances of Chas Campbell having a working perpetual motion machine. They might even suggest dropping all efforts! They might quote the Law of Conservation of Energy and recommend not to waste time and effort.?
No, I?m not doing that.
But where is your math?
I couldn?t find it.
The machine doesn?t work because the total momentum averages to zero.
Tx,
Tinu
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 11:59:25 AM
Okay...I give up. This is where the laughter breaks out as the arrogant professor tears out his hair and the plotting students roll on the floor at their successful crazy-making.
Stefan obviously is not stupid. Everyone can clearly see the point I have made is correct. Stefan pretends not to get it. Humbugger goes insane being told he is wrong by an authority figure when everyone can plainly see he is right.
Humbugger, you are correct in your analysis, but I think yo should look closely at what stefan has said:
QuoteIf you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again.
Stefan seems to be under the impression that you can stop the wheel and wait for the ball to go in. Maybe this is possible with some type of mechanism to keep the wheel from rolling backwards. With Chas's wheel, I think as soon as you have more force on the lift side than on the descending side, the wheel will start to move in the opposite direction.
as for your beer analogy, your talking my language now... your centrifical force which I don't see how it adds any work even if your theory was correct. Here is my Beer anaology to your senerio... Take a Keg of Beer upto a 2nd Story Balcony... have your wife drop it down onto your head, for safety reasons lets say you step off so when the keg of beer hits your hands your arms are at a 45 degree angle. when that keg hits your hands and you push it off so it does not crush your toes... the keg is pushing against your arms til it hits 90 degrees.. there is no centrifical force until the keg reaches the maximum velocity of the outward force.
he is another example
a spinning motor takes more energy to start than it does to run, assuming building up the centrifical force.. In a loading and unloading gravity wheel, you throw it away on the down stroke before it reachs (2x wheel in 15 degrees, 3.87x wheel in 7.5 degrees) just at the beginning of the power curve. On the up stroke the instant you hit peak velocity for maximum centrifical force you drop it out of the system.
As for the other Device, it has been in use for 50+ years if not longer in the commerical/Industrial Market, it is a Rotary UPS http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rotary+ups (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rotary+ups) Caterpillar (The Heavy Equipment/Motor Manufacturer) as far as my experience is the most mature product. It's a mechanical Battery.. and it's defiently not self sustaining.. takes almost a Day to spin up, but will output over a Megawatt of electricity before it stops spinning...
The Rotoverter is probably a mature product as well, the core of it is at least, it's what's known as a Rotary Transformer, used to power 3 phase devices from single phase.. I got a 30HP one sitting in a warehouse, that we used to use to run Large Frame Lasers that had 3-phase AC/DC power Supplies (210VDC at 40AMPS output) I havn't looked at the schematics for a rotoverter vs a rotary transformer yet, or even really looked at a rotoverter schematic, all I know is that you do the same input, have the same issues with Cap Banks vs load.. well and the fact that you use don't add a alternator off the shaft.
MIB turned me down for my badge, said I am working on the wrong side, I should be encourging the research of concepts that are known failures for the past 3000 years
hartiberlin,
Putting a ball in each hole at one time would not be a true representation
of how his system works.
Again, being that the balls roll at maybe a 30 to 35 degree slope
after it hits the PCS pipes, and then slam the wheel with extra energy.
Nobody has added that into the equation Yet. (Hans... still waiting...)
It also would not take into consideration a gradual time slope which
gets the forces up to a certain speed and centrifical force. This
could result in improper results.
Ive already listed the things that Chas can do to fix his machine
which are fairly easy to do. (with the bottom gate being the
most challenging, but still achievable for such a handy inverter)
I think its easier it he just repair that points I suggest than to
speculate further.
rMuD: Your insight is keen. You must be an old guy like me. [they were called dynamotors in the military...very common knowledge...easy to tune for peak efficiency as long as the output load was unchanging...after the war, lots of people wrote up plans for jiggling the caps around to use 400Hz units on 60Hz and three phase units on single phase]
re: "MIB turned me down for my badge, said I am working on the wrong side, I should be encourging the research of concepts that are known failures for the past 3000 years"
8)
If I were a strategist working for CIA, MIB, big oil, the PTB, etc., it would not take me long to suggest that the strategy of sending dozens of skeptics into arenas like this would be stupid and futile. It could actually further the "progress of the science" if they were at all effective at truncating futile efforts.
Far more effective would be the placement of a few strategic leadership folks who would pose as avid enthusiasts and openly encourage every proposed idea no matter how easily it was proven unworkable by even simple inspection. The hoards of sincere hopeful believers manipulated by a few chuckling false gurus getting rich pretending to carry the banner of free energy heroes,soldiers and martyrs. Now you have an effective strategy for denigrating the whole field and assuring no progress.
Anyone insisting on critical thought would have to be silenced, banned, ridiculed and shouted down or frustrated into oblivion. The place would become so completely full of rabidly-pursued unworkable ideas and ultra-enthusiastic fervent replicators that anyone with a decent ability to think and reason abstractly would forget the whole idea of free energy after one visit!
What better way to push potentially contributing thinking people away and to sourly discredit the whole free energy concept as being foolish? The "mole skeptic" idea looks limp by comparison.
Next time anyone uses the "oil-man" accusation in response to a logical skeptical argument, think about that.
Humbugger ~ I don't work for nobody ~ I ain't got no badges!
[Disclaimer: The story you have just read is fictional speculation; food for thought. Any resemblance to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental and does not imply that such persons or events coincide with the ideas expressed here in any way.]
Quote from: zero on September 09, 2007, 01:34:04 PM
hartiberlin,
Putting a ball in each hole at one time would not be a true representation
of how his system works.
Again, being that the balls roll at maybe a 30 to 35 degree slope
after it hits the PCS pipes, and then slam the wheel with extra energy.
Nobody has added that into the equation Yet. (Hans... still waiting...)
It also would not take into consideration a gradual time slope which
gets the forces up to a certain speed and centrifical force. This
could result in improper results.
Ive already listed the things that Chas can do to fix his machine
which are fairly easy to do. (with the bottom gate being the
most challenging, but still achievable for such a handy inverter)
I think its easier it he just repair that points I suggest than to
speculate further.
Net Gain is 0 pushing 1 distance or dropping with acceleration still equals 1 unit of work to the machine F=ma
Mass of Object = 1;
Free falling in a vacuum at Sea Level is 9.78 m/s
Device will operate at a rate of 1m/s
Both apply to the meter/second.. so it takes 1 second to fall 9.78 meters, and 9.78 seconds for the device to travel
Distance of Travel we will say to be simple is 9.78m
Freel Fall will give us
F = 1 x 9.78 = 9.78 X 1 Second
F = 9.78
Device
F = 1 X 1 = 1 x 9.78 Seconds
F = 9.78
Free Fall Force = Device Pushing Force
The trouble with not taking a scientific approach to validating this project is it does more damage than good to the Free Energy Cause. The same thing happenned with the Joe Cell, it was surrounded by cultish believers but to this day not one Joe cell can be produced that will run a car without fuel. the ony people to benefit were the stailess steel vendors.
I also find it amusing that a person like myself who is a member of the New Energy Congress, who has travelled the world evaluating these types of technologies (I have had 37 flights this year including 16 internationals) is not allowed to attend a demonstration of this device. Why????
I guess the next step is to try and discredit me, or as in the case of the Joe Cell people threaten me.
Mark
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 09, 2007, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 11:59:25 AM
Okay...I give up. This is where the laughter breaks out as the arrogant professor tears out his hair and the plotting students roll on the floor at their successful crazy-making.
Stefan obviously is not stupid. Everyone can clearly see the point I have made is correct. Stefan pretends not to get it. Humbugger goes insane being told he is wrong by an authority figure when everyone can plainly see he is right.
Humbugger, you are correct in your analysis, but I think yo should look closely at what stefan has said:
QuoteIf you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again.
Stefan seems to be under the impression that you can stop the wheel and wait for the ball to go in. Maybe this is possible with some type of mechanism to keep the wheel from rolling backwards. With Chas's wheel, I think as soon as you have more force on the lift side than on the descending side, the wheel will start to move in the opposite direction.
Shrugged:
Yes, it is obvious I have failed to communicate well enough. Please think about this one last time.
No matter the stopping and going. No matter the rate of balls rolling along ramps. No matter the number of extra balls waiting on ramps.
If there is two feet of linear distance between each of the 12 cups on the outer wheel and if the fixed places where the ramps feed and retrieve the balls into and out of the wheel's cups are only one foot apart, then there will be some times when there are no balls in the outer wheel's cupsIn other words, once again,
when the cup with the ball in it gets to the exit ramp and moves out of the big wheel's cup and onto the ramp, at that very moment, no matter there may be 87 balls waiting and ready to get into the next available entry cup from the top ramp, the receiving cup isstill a whole foot away from being in position to receive a ball. In this case, the time of having a ball on the wheel and the time it would be empty would be equal. For our torque add-up then, we would only count half of one ball on the right side of the wheel as an average.
Stefan keeps insisting there would always be at least one ball on the outer wheel. He seems to think there will automatically be a cup in position to receive a new ball as soon as the ball is present at the feeding end of the upper ramp. In reality, it can't get on the wheel until the next empty cup arrives.
Only a forward jerking infinite-speed motion could get the next empty cup in place to receive the new ball at the same time the old ball leaves its cup for the exit ramp. Stopping the wheel does nothing. I am already giving that the ramps always have a fresh ball in position whenever a cup comes by.
"Stefan seems to be under the impression that you can stop the wheel and wait for the ball to go in."
You would have an infinitely long wait on your hands if you stopped the wheel at the moment the lower ball leaves it cup. The upper "feed" ramp may have a ball ready after only a moment, but the wheel will be even further out of position to receive it if it has been stopped or slowed.Please tell me you get it now. Please...even if you have to lie! :D
Humbugger
Quote from: markdansie on September 09, 2007, 03:37:50 PM
The trouble with not taking a scientific approach to validating this project is it does more damage than good to the Free Energy Cause. The same thing happenned with the Joe Cell, it was surrounded by cultish believers but to this day not one Joe cell can be produced that will run a car without fuel. the ony people to benefit were the stailess steel vendors.
I also find it amusing that a person like myself who is a member of the New Energy Congress, who has travelled the world evaluating these types of technologies (I have had 37 flights this year including 16 internationals) is not allowed to attend a demonstration of this device. Why????
I guess the next step is to try and discredit me, or as in the case of the Joe Cell people threaten me.
Mark
Mark:
Deathbed request...will you and rMuD and ShruggedAtlas and Hans and Argona369 and Tinu take over for me after I croak or get banned? It would settle my heart and soul. Your post echoes my sentiments exactly and in fewer, less "pointy" words.
Humbugger ~ not long for this world my friends
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 03:39:53 PM
Please tell me you get it now. Please...even if you have to lie! :D
Humbugger
I get it now - I was looking at the wrong chart. In the 3.8763 distance diagram, it looked like the receptacles lined up perfectly to get the balls, but I see you are now discussing a distance of 4:1, where the receptacle cup cannot get to the next ball in time, so you would indeed have no balls at all, and you would need Chas's arm to help the device along.
On the bright side, I think the wheel can still work. We simply need to pay Chas to stand next to it and give it a little push every few seconds or so. Of course to determine over or under unity, we have to calculate the calories in the food we feed Chas and then make an appropriate calculation of the work he is doing, so we can compare. Hans, can you assist with such calculations?
To increase efficiency, we could also deliver the food to Chas's mouth using a flywheel.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 03:39:53 PM
In other words, once again, when the cup with the ball in it gets to the exit ramp and moves out of the big wheel's cup and onto the ramp, at that very moment, no matter there may be 87 balls waiting and ready to get into the next available entry cup from the top ramp, the receiving cup isstill a whole foot away from being in position to receive a ball.
So what about having more balls waiting on the lower ramp, than are on the upper ramp ?
Then you could easily stop the wheel and wait until the next ball has gone 4 x distance out and
still have a next ball at the lower entrance to go upwards !
Not so complicated right ?
So Humbuger,
where are still your torque calculations ?
Shrugged...I have added your name and Hans' to my deathbed request above. Thank you for helping an "arrogant" old tired engineer get some well-deserved sleep. It was really bugging me.
Thanks for thinking hard
Humbugger
So Humbugger,
what about this ?
10 balls in play game,
enough waiting to get picked up.
If the upper left ball at 11 o?clock is on the upper ramp,
wheel is stopped shortly, so the ball can roll out and get the next red
ball to propell the wheel ?
So who is showing me the error in my torque calculation
of the 3.9 to 3.6 advantage ?
Thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 04:24:10 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 03:39:53 PM
In other words, once again, when the cup with the ball in it gets to the exit ramp and moves out of the big wheel's cup and onto the ramp, at that very moment, no matter there may be 87 balls waiting and ready to get into the next available entry cup from the top ramp, the receiving cup isstill a whole foot away from being in position to receive a ball.
So what about having more balls waiting on the lower ramp, than are on the upper ramp ?
Then you could easily stop the wheel and wait until the next ball has gone 4 x distance out and
still have a next ball at the lower entrance to go upwards !
Not so complicated right ?
So Humbuger,
where are still your torque calculations ?
Either you are really purposely avoiding this issue or I have overestimated your intelligence. You are entirely capable of doing the math. I just wanted you to do it with a correct understanding of how many balls are on the right side of the wheel. I have worked far too hard at communicating an extremely clear and obviously true fact to be fooled into thinking I need to do more.
I am convinced; you may choose to go on with the pretense that your calculations based on having a 4:1 wheel setup and two balls on the right are valid. If we cannot agree on the number of balls on the wheel, there is no point in adding up the torques. I'm tired of this particular game.
You tell me how many balls are on the outer wheel averaged over 30 degrees at a 4:1 ratio. If the number agrees with mine [hint: it's less than unity], I'll do the calculation. If not, we end this charade.
Humbugger
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 04:36:37 PM
So Humbugger,
what about this ?
10 balls in play game,
enough waiting to get picked up.
If the upper left ball at 11 o?clock is on the upper ramp,
wheel is stopped shortly, so the ball can roll out and get the next red
ball to propell the wheel ?
So who is showing me the error in my torque calculation
of the 3.9 to 3.6 advantage ?
Thanks.
There is something wrong in your chart, I think. It is hard to explain without pointing and showing - alas the Interent - but I will do my best. You notice how the receptacles in the outer wheel are not evenly spaced? I think you simply moved the receptacles in the outer wheel to where they would line up with the ramps, without accounting for where they actually need to be for the system to work. You will notice that if you try to trace a straight line, you cannot get from the ball in the outside wheel receptacle to the corresponding ball in the inner wheel.
>Humbugger ~ not long for this world my friends
Sorry to hear that Humbugger,
We worked up to a frenzy of continuous 24/7 dive bombing chem spraying
over your house.
Sorry for all the wheezing and coughing we?ve been causing. :-\
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 04:07:39 PM
Mark:
Deathbed request...will you and rMuD and Mark and Hans take over for me after I croak or get banned? It would settle my heart and soul. Your post echoes my sentiments exactly and in fewer, less "pointy" words.
Humbugger ~ not long for this world my friends
G'day all,
Stefan,
It does not matter how many balls you have waiting on the bottom ramp, or on any ramp for that matter.
What matters is that for every ball that does work a new ball has to be brought to the starting position. even if you had a 1:1 relationship on both sides of the equation (which you do not have because of friction losses and dead time and force because when the ball is on the ramp it is not doing any productive work) the best you could hope for is equilibrium, there being not enough energy in the system to create an imbalance.
Perhaps you remember the analogy of a scale when we first learned to do algebra, you had to do THE SAME THING ON BOTH SIDES.
What you are trying to do is to add something to the right side that is not available to subtract from the left in order to create an imbalance.
Hans von Lieven
PS: Perhaps "Professor" Evert will lend you some of his Aether energy :-)
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 09, 2007, 04:50:48 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 04:36:37 PM
So Humbugger,
what about this ?
10 balls in play game,
enough waiting to get picked up.
If the upper left ball at 11 o?clock is on the upper ramp,
wheel is stopped shortly, so the ball can roll out and get the next red
ball to propell the wheel ?
So who is showing me the error in my torque calculation
of the 3.9 to 3.6 advantage ?
Thanks.
There is something wrong in your chart, I think. It is hard to explain without pointing and showing - alas the Interent - but I will do my best. You notice how the receptacles in the outer wheel are not evenly spaced? I think you simply moved the receptacles in the outer wheel to where they would line up with the ramps, without accounting for where they actually need to be for the system to work. You will notice that if you try to trace a straight line, you cannot get from the ball in the outside wheel receptacle to the corresponding ball in the inner wheel.
That is correct. Stefan is using the new over-unity magic instantaneous auto-aligning Campbell Corporation Panacea brand ball cup receptacles which move around on the wheel at his wish. He has threatened to put them on read only if they disobey.
Quote from: argona369 on September 09, 2007, 04:51:48 PM
>Humbugger ~ not long for this world my friends
Sorry to hear that Humbugger,
We worked up to a frenzy of continuous 24/7 dive bombing chem spraying
over your house.
Sorry for all the wheezing and coughing we?ve been causing. :-\
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 04:07:39 PM
Mark:
Deathbed request...will Mark and rMuD and ShruggedAtlas and Hans and Tinu and Argona360 please take over for me after I croak or get banned? It would settle my heart and soul. Your post echoes my sentiments exactly and in fewer, less "pointy" words.
Humbugger ~ not long for this world my friends
You're that pissed just because I left you off my deathbed legacy wish list? I apologize. I'll correct that immediately. And I thought the wheezing was from those funny cigarettes I've been smokin'.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 04:24:10 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 03:39:53 PM
In other words, once again, when the cup with the ball in it gets to the exit ramp and moves out of the big wheel's cup and onto the ramp, at that very moment, no matter there may be 87 balls waiting and ready to get into the next available entry cup from the top ramp, the receiving cup isstill a whole foot away from being in position to receive a ball.
So what about having more balls waiting on the lower ramp, than are on the upper ramp ?
Then you could easily stop the wheel and wait until the next ball has gone 4 x distance out and
still have a next ball at the lower entrance to go upwards !
It's a closed system, if you have any extra going up or down.. it will run out of balls top or bottom... you can have as many balls as you can fit in the queue, so you don't have to wait for ball to roll from the outer wheel to the inner wheel.. but that is of no consequence
the machine at 4x scale will have no weight... negative torque machine will running backwards, all the weight pushing down on the upswing side with no weight to counter act it on the down side, runs nice as slow til there is no ball on the down stroke and then goes from a 0 or your .3 positive to a negative -3.6 differential for 8.3% (2.5 degrees) of the time gives your -0.3 loss to equal it out
and whatever math you use it's going to be equal on both sides, even with a catastrophic failure with no weight on one of the sides
honestly with a catistropic failure beyond 3.87x larger I though you would have caught on that it was harder to dispute that running the machine backwards is actually more complex to prove it's unity in theory and could be self sustaining than keep fighting that it could work going forward at 4x
G'day rMuD,
You are right on the money! :-)
Hans von Lieven
Gee, maybe it will run backward or sit there and just rock back and forth forever! Hell yes!
Okay...never mind...get to building those replications, guys! Last one to the woodshed is a Dilbert!
Humbugger couldn't resist
G'day again,
If everyone had done as I suggested right at the beginning and cut out a cardboard disk and stuck some coins on it we wouldn't be having this discussion. On the other hand we would have missed much of the fun :-)
Hans von Lieven
>You're that pissed just because I left you off my deathbed legacy wish list?
No, that?s ok Hum,
so that?s what that smell was.
I?ve already got my hands full with all the chem spraying and MIB work I have to do,,,,,
rMuD,
Im no math wiz, but what you are saying does not make sense to me.
As Ive said before, lets look at the difference in forces between:
1) I set a 100lb sphere on your back
2) I attach a 3ft metal slide to your back that is at a 45 degree angle,
and roll the ball down that - to your back.
Are the results the same?! No.
Setting a ball on your back, the ball has no energy forces in it.
Rolling the ball down the track allows it to gain speed and
more gravitational forces. Its mass gains momentum, and
that gained power will translate to a greater mass effect.
The work unit is different... in work being done is much
greater.
Remember, that the wheel is not allowing full gravity speeds on
its own... because of other weights involved, as well as physical
constrictions such as frictions. This is where the balls extra
energy comes into play, and helps boost the power levels.
Quote from: argona369 on September 09, 2007, 05:17:56 PM
>You're that pissed just because I left you off my deathbed legacy wish list?
No, that?s ok Hum,
so that?s what that smell was.
I?ve already got my hands full with all the chem spraying and MIB work I have to do,,,,,
Okay but how about a few more hits on that purple stuff...the neighbor lady gets really horny every time that one streaks the skies.
Hum
G'day Zero,
The ball on his back has the SAME amount of potential energy as the rolling ball at the staring position. Only because it has not yet moved does not mean it is not there.
There is NO energy GAIN in the rolling ball.
You fail to understand the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy. Like having a tank full of petrol, because the car is not running does not mean there is no energy in the tank.
Hans von Lieven
G'day Stefan,
Almost is not enough, it is that almost that has prevented all Bessler wheel designs we know of to fail. You do NOT have 30 degrees at a distance of 4X only 26.2 that is insufficient. Go any closer where you have the necessary arc and you have not enough torque to lift the other balls.
Hans von Lieven
Thats not true Hans,
The energy of the Impact when that ball hits hit back will be
much greater than it just set or resting there.
1) Take a teeter, and put one ball on one side.
2) set a ball on the other side.
result = teeter ballances
1) take teeter and put one ball on one side.
2) drop a ball from 3ft at the other side
result = other sides ball will fly off the teeter.
Humbugger .. get the defibrillator out - you've got a bit more time on this earth yet ;)
IMO you are entirely correct as is Hans & others ? sometimes we just say it in different ways.
Stephan .. probably the easiest way to see if there is any continuous asymmetric torque is to use simple ?turning moments? i.e. assign a positive & negative side to the wheel thru the vertical line down thru the axle. Measure the horizontal distance [doesn?t matter what scale you use] to each weight & record them in a table format ? add them up ? they will show a net positive or negative sum.
This is a STATIC representation of the wheels torque ?redraw the same wheel a few degrees on & repeat the ?turning moments? calculations ? sum them again - plot the results of your STATIC tests ? keep repeating this process until you start to see a sinusoidal shaped curve of sorts.
Where the resultant is greatest [either positive or negative] will be the position of greatest torque [or back-torque as the case may be] ? where it is least, going down towards zero, will be the wheels ?keel position? i.e. the position of zero torque or least Potential Energy.
N.B.1 this does not account for any normal system losses such as friction, heat, sound, windage etc.
N.B.2 the wheel will naturally oscillate [between positive & negative torque] but stuck in one 30 degree segment until it settles down & keels.
If you are unconvinced that this simplified approach is valid then you can go thru the more rigorous ft/lbs of torque calcs etc but you will get the same result [a mental picture forming of the STATIC wheels ability to create continuous asymmetric torque].
If you still believe there is merit in Chas?s concept [& I mean no disrespect to Chas ? his enthusiasm & openness is laudable ? who wants to unnecessarily burst any bubble] then you need to consider the DYNAMIC situation & start to look at more complex representations of what?s going on ? I would hasten to say that in the DYNAMIC analysis you need to carefully consider Conservation of Momentum to see if there is any increase in overall wheels RPM [vis-?-vis Momentum] after system losses are approximated & accounted for.
P.S. FYI .. Ash was formally well known on Besslerwheel.com, as Epi ? where we have collectively spent a lot of time publicly analyzing such designs as Chas?s & where we also promote fairness & objectivity of comment, like Humbugger & some others here consistently demonstrate imo.
Here it is once again with a better picture:
On the left side:
2 balls 0.5 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
2 balls 0.8 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.6 units
1 ball 1.0 distance from axis x 1 Kg = 1.0 units
====================================
sum= 3.6 units
On the right side we have then:
1 ball at 3.9 distance from the axis x 1 Kg= 3.9 units
====================================
sum= 3.9 units
We still have a 3.9 versus 3.6 advantage.
Nobody has pointed out yet the error.
Yes, and I have about 30 degrees of rotation I can use ,
when I build it right for the red ball to go down,when I have an upper and lower flat rail,
not just 26 degrees !
As the yellow ball comes up it still has speed, so it can roll forward on a flat low friction rail
with no negative incline,
so you have almost 29 to 30 degrees for propulsion of the wheel there
and still the 3.9 to 3.6 advantage, so you could lift up the next yellow ball
and have again the same picture as below and the cycle begins again...
Zero,
You have just added 3 ft of additional energy into the system. Of course it will imbalance if you add additional energy.
Hans von Lieven
The ball is on the wheel for only 27.7 degrees out of 30
27.7/30 = 3.6/3.9
If you wish to quibble about the rounding errors, please do so on both sides of the equation. By yourself.
Humbugger
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 05:56:15 PM
The ball is on the wheel for only 27.7 degrees out of 30
27.7/30 = 3.6/3.9
I can do better !
29 degrees!
What now ???
Why is nobody doing the torque calculations ???????
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 05:58:52 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 05:56:15 PM
The ball is on the wheel for only 27.7 degrees out of 30
27.7/30 = 3.6/3.9
I can do better !
29 degrees!
What now ???
Why is nobody doing the torque calculations ???????
Since we are making up numbers arbitrarily, I bid 23
So you agree Humbugger, that when I can do it with more than 27.7 degrees , that I have overunity ???
So Chas, go for 29 degrees !
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 03:39:53 PM
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 09, 2007, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 11:59:25 AM
Okay...I give up. This is where the laughter breaks out as the arrogant professor tears out his hair and the plotting students roll on the floor at their successful crazy-making.
Stefan obviously is not stupid. Everyone can clearly see the point I have made is correct. Stefan pretends not to get it. Humbugger goes insane being told he is wrong by an authority figure when everyone can plainly see he is right.
Humbugger, you are correct in your analysis, but I think yo should look closely at what stefan has said:
QuoteIf you stop the wheel, when the next ball has come up at the left side,
it has enough time to run out to 4x.
Then always one ball is at the right side and it can then start the wheel again.
Stefan seems to be under the impression that you can stop the wheel and wait for the ball to go in. Maybe this is possible with some type of mechanism to keep the wheel from rolling backwards. With Chas's wheel, I think as soon as you have more force on the lift side than on the descending side, the wheel will start to move in the opposite direction.
Shrugged:
Yes, it is obvious I have failed to communicate well enough. Please think about this one last time.
No matter the stopping and going. No matter the rate of balls rolling along ramps. No matter the number of extra balls waiting on ramps.
If there is two feet of linear distance between each of the 12 cups on the outer wheel and if the fixed places where the ramps feed and retrieve the balls into and out of the wheel's cups are only one foot apart, then there will be some times when there are no balls in the outer wheel's cups
In other words, once again, when the cup with the ball in it gets to the exit ramp and moves out of the big wheel's cup and onto the ramp, at that very moment, no matter there may be 87 balls waiting and ready to get into the next available entry cup from the top ramp, the receiving cup isstill a whole foot away from being in position to receive a ball.
In this case, the time of having a ball on the wheel and the time it would be empty would be equal. For our torque add-up then, we would only count half of one ball on the right side of the wheel as an average.
Stefan keeps insisting there would always be at least one ball on the outer wheel. He seems to think there will automatically be a cup in position to receive a new ball as soon as the ball is present at the feeding end of the upper ramp. In reality, it can't get on the wheel until the next empty cup arrives.
Only a forward jerking infinite-speed motion could get the next empty cup in place to receive the new ball at the same time the old ball leaves its cup for the exit ramp. Stopping the wheel does nothing. I am already giving that the ramps always have a fresh ball in position whenever a cup comes by.
"Stefan seems to be under the impression that you can stop the wheel and wait for the ball to go in."
You would have an infinitely long wait on your hands if you stopped the wheel at the moment the lower ball leaves it cup. The upper "feed" ramp may have a ball ready after only a moment, but the wheel will be even further out of position to receive it if it has been stopped or slowed.
Please tell me you get it now. Please...even if you have to lie! :D
Humbugger
Let people process, Hum.
You are right but the acceptance of bare truth takes some time.
I?ll try below put your idea in other wording:
The number of slots on the outer rim can not be larger than the number of slots of the inner rim.
If it is, the balls will deplete from the upper part and will accumulate in the lower part and in the final the wheel will inevitably come to a stop. Hence, same number of inner-outer slots, people!
This is the ?lack of information? some might have.
If you get it right, the equations are posted again bellow.
As a consequence, there is a maximum radius for the outer rim. It can not go to infinite because the distance between slots becomes too large. It further means that there would be times during which there is not at least one ball on the outer rim. So, if no balls on the outer rim, what angular momentum will make it turn?! It will stop and then start turning the other way, due to the balls on the inner rim.
So, it is not a matter of time, as Stefan implies.
It?s not, because you may have as many balls as you want. The balls will just wait in their line. (Just like in the movie). So, not the number of balls is the key for analyzing the machine but the number of slots (or cups, if you want). The supplementary balls, waiting in the line, will not affect the overall angular momentum until they occupy their slots.
Here is again the simple formula to play with:
Rint<Rext<Rint/sin(pi/n) in radians
Rint<Rext<Rint/sin(180/n) in degrees
where:
n ? total number of ball slots on each rim
Rint ? radius of the inner rim
Rext ? radius of the outer rim
Pick your n and Rint/Rex, compute the torque, mediate it and see it is always zero.
Tinu
Ok, here it is for your case, Stefan:
Angle a=30 degrees
if m- mass of each ball, assume m*g=1, for simplicity
Right: 2 balls
Left: 5 balls (as per your picture)
Torque:
Right: Rext+Rext*cos(a)
Left: Rint+2*Rint*cos(a) +2*Rint*cos(2*a)
If Rint=1, Rext=Rmax theoretically possible for 12 total slots and 3 on the right = 2, you?ll have:
Right: 2+2*0.866 = 3.7321
Left: 1+2*0.866 + 2*0.5 = 3.7321
Great! The wheel stays!
Sorry Stefan, it doesn?t work; like I?ve told.
You wanted a proof and here it is.
I guess you?ve done a mistake but it?s your job to find it.
I suppose it?s in your understanding about Rmax. In your picture Rmax can not be larger than 2. In order to be 3.8637 (maximum possible), you have to redraw it. In that case the ball on the right will not be on horizontal but at 15 degrees above and the torque will be proportionally smaller.
I?m also going to bed,
Tinu
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 06:03:34 PM
So you agree Humbugger, that when I can do it with more than 27.7 degrees , that I have overunity ???
So Chas, go for 29 degrees !
Yes, if he would just put
exactly 360/29 (12.41379310...) cups on the wheel, I think it would work. But only if the cups are those special ones I mentioned previously. The Panacea brand by Campbell Corp. (only the Rev G or later will work in this application)
I heard they got a big grant and the cups will be ready in a couple of years.
Hum
Tinu,
you did not analyze my last picture.
Things change, when you different setups.
I now have always only 1 ball at the right side, not 2.
I will try to calculate it tomorrow with your formulars
and then we will see, where the error is.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 06:03:34 PM
So you agree Humbugger, that when I can do it with more than 27.7 degrees , that I have overunity ???
So Chas, go for 29 degrees !
Yes, if he would just put exactly 360/29 (12.41379310...) cups on the wheel, I think it would work. But only if the cups are those special ones I mentioned previously. The Panacea brand by Campbell Corp. (only the Rev G or later will work in this application)
I heard they got a big grant and the cups will be ready in a couple of years.
Hum
That is typically,
if you are caught by your own faults, the skeptics can only do
ridicule and never see their own mistakes...
Hans,
If you watch the Video, you can see that the PVC entry Pipes
Are maybe 1.5 ft long, at maybe 30-40 degress slope
downwards.
This is creating more energy that what you are
calculating for the 2d only drawing.. which is
NOT how Chas's wheel operates.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 06:11:21 PM
Tinu,
you did not analyze my last picture.
Things change, when you different setups.
I now have always only 1 ball at the right side, not 2.
I will try to calculate it tomorrow with your formulars
and then we will see, where the error is.
Stefan: Suggestion...use the situation where the diameter of the outer wheel is 3.8673x the inner. The situation, in any case, where the straight-line distance between ball cup centers is equal to 1 unit. Then you can figure one ball on the right side 100% of the time over the full 30 degrees..
Hum
Sorry Stefan, even 29 degrees is not enough, you have still one degree to go where you have 3.6 on one side and zero on the other. THAT is the killer.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 06:13:14 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 06:03:34 PM
So you agree Humbugger, that when I can do it with more than 27.7 degrees , that I have overunity ???
So Chas, go for 29 degrees !
Yes, if he would just put exactly 360/29 (12.41379310...) cups on the wheel, I think it would work. But only if the cups are those special ones I mentioned previously. The Panacea brand by Campbell Corp. (only the Rev G or later will work in this application)
I heard they got a big grant and the cups will be ready in a couple of years.
Hum
That is typically,
if you are caught by your own faults, the skeptics can only do
ridicule and never see their own mistakes...
Tell us how you would evenly space a cup every 29 degrees then on a 360 degree circle. Sometimes pointing out the absurd must be done with absurdity.
The suggestion that you can arbitrarily decide a random number of degrees to pick for constructing the wheel yet always have evenly spaced cups of an integer quantity is indeed ridiculous. So I used the tool of ridicule to point it out. I feel that is fair game in this case. I am not avoiding any logical argument. I am returning what is served at me.
Humbugger
except Hum at 3.8673x the inner you do not have enough torque to lift the other balls
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 06:11:21 PM
Tinu,
you did not analyze my last picture.
Things change, when you different setups.
I now have always only 1 ball at the right side, not 2.
I will try to calculate it tomorrow with your formulars
and then we will see, where the error is.
It doesn?t really matter.
The result will always be zero.
I?ve told it before: it?s difficult to write a demonstration that is valid for any conceivable case. But for any n, R, the simple math shows zero torque.
Tinu
P.S. Simple copy-paste; srry for it:
Ok, here it is for your second case, Stefan:
Angle a=30 degrees
if m- mass of each ball, assume m*g=1, for simplicity
Right: 1 ball
Left: 5 balls (as per your second picture)
Torque:
Right: Rext*cos(a/2) ;
I guess here was your error. The ball is at 15 degreesLeft: Rint+2*Rint*cos(a) +2*Rint*cos(2*a)
If Rint=1, Rext=Rmax theoretically possible for 12 total slots and 1 on the right = 3.8637, you?ll have:
Right: 3.8637* 0.96592 = 3.7321
Left: 1+2*0.866 + 2*0.5 = 3.7321
Great! The wheel stays!
See? It?s exactly the same!
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 09, 2007, 06:22:14 PM
except Hum at 3.8673x the inner you do not have enough torque to lift the other balls
Hans von Lieven
I always have enough torque to lift my balls...even without Viagara...
I want to know, since i have once again been accused of ridiculing and being a naughty bad skeptic, just how you stick an integer number of cups evenly around a circle at 29 degrees apart. Until I get that answer from Stefan and his confession that the "change it to 29 degrees" idea was absolutely absurd, i'm going to shut up and have a shot of single malt.
Hum
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 08:57:36 AM
Gaby demonstates that he was not following the earlier discussion where Stefan suggested that Charles's wheel could not work unless the ratio of outer radius to inner radius were larger than Charles 2:1 ratio. Stefan did simple torque arm math that convincingly showed this for the 2:1 case.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48064.html#msg48064 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48064.html#msg48064)
Others joined in, I among them, and an excellent discussion raged for an hour or more. I don't recall Gaby participating.
One of the ideas proposed was that there was no limit on the ratio.
Another was that there would always be at least one ball on the right side of the wheel no matter the size. Another was that there are times when two balls ride the right side when the ratio is 4:1.
All three of those assertions are untrue and I set out to show that. All of it simply leads to the conclusion, if the simple math is done correctly, that the torque moments are always equal and opposite for a full cycle.
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 09:17:10 AM
P.S. Don?t bother gaby; he?s above us all; well above and out of this world?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.go-here.nl%2Fchas-is-cool.png&hash=09641d3bf95e3f1bcb97a5cfca153255b4fd0ddf)
*edit*
The balls spiral inwards cuz that makes it spin faster (in case that wasn't obvious)
Quote from: zero on September 09, 2007, 05:47:32 PM
Thats not true Hans,
The energy of the Impact when that ball hits hit back will be
much greater than it just set or resting there.
1) Take a teeter, and put one ball on one side.
2) set a ball on the other side.
result = teeter ballances
1) take teeter and put one ball on one side.
2) drop a ball from 3ft at the other side
result = other sides ball will fly off the teeter.
think about what you said here... if your knocking a ball up... if it was more energy.. wouldn't the other ball go up further than where you dropped the other ball from? which then falls and the other ball goes up even higher? circus preformers bodies in orbit?
go out in the back yard, put two baskets on the ends of a 2x4 and chair in the middle where it's balanced.. or a axle :) do drop tests.. you will find that as long as you do not drop the ball further than the distance the teeter totter can move your not going to have a flying ball.. and if you go beyond that.. you aren't going to exceed the height you started with, from mechanical loss, also a signifigant lost from the fact that when you impact the teeter totter with the falling ball, some of the energy has to be absorbed by the board because it cannot accelarate instantly
I'll draw a picture :)
Zero. you seem to think that if you run a ball down a PVC pipe you can gain energy, quite the contrary, you lose some.
I suggest the study of an elementary text on physics. Inclined planes would be a good place to start.
Oops sorry, I forgot science is wrong on everything.
Sorry.
Hans von Lieven
@Stefan
Please...Tell us how you would evenly space a cup every 29 degrees then on a 360 degree circle. Only a whole number of cups, please.
I have poured and consumed two shots of Glen Livet, I am ready to hear your answer.
Humbugger
The point is, that there is additional forces when the ball is moving and
impacting the wheel rather than just being gently placed there.
Hans, I believe in science. But what you are doing is misinterpreting it
to your advantage.
Here is another idea I had, which might not work due to friction and
other complications...
If all the inner cups were slideable than you could use a guide track
to keep a lot of the weight more towards the center.
red = guide rail
Green = slide pocket tracks
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 06:23:48 PM
Right: 3.8637* 0.96592 = 3.7321
Left: 1+2*0.866 + 2*0.5 = 3.7321
Okay, you made the error at the right side !
there we have an angle of 14,5 degrees, as I said, I could do it with 29 degrees,
so 29:2 = 14.5 degrees.
so cos (14.5 degrees)= 0,9681 x 4 = 3.87
At the left side you were right:
1x sin 90 + 2 x sin 60 + 2 x sin 30 = 1+2*0.866 + 2*0.5 = 3.7321
So I still have an advantage of :
3.87 to 3.73
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 06:42:55 PM
@Stefan
Please...Tell us how you would evenly space a cup every 29 degrees then on a 360 degree circle. Only a whole number of cups, please.
I have poured and consumed two shots of Glen Livet, I am ready to hear your answer.
Humbugger
;D ;D ;D
(Better that it's no longer necessary do do it...
Already proved that Campbell's wheel is not working. See above.)
Tinu
Quote from: zero on September 09, 2007, 06:43:36 PM
Here is another idea I had, which might not work due to friction and
other complications...
If all the inner cups were slideable than you could use a guide track
to keep a lot of the weight more towards the center.
red = guide rail
Green = slide pocket tracks
Great idea , zero,
I guess this could work, if it is not too steep and the rolling friction
for this would be low.
But I think the Bob Kostoff device is a much better candidate for
an efficient gravity converter, as it uses the bigger centrifugal force
and converts this to energy output.
With this Kostoff device there can be much bigger power densities
reached with much smaller devices as you only have to buildup speed,
to maximize the centrifugal forces.
This can also be done in a small wheel, when it is build right.
Does anyone know, how to model a spring fixation mechanism in
Working Model 2D simulator software ?
Then this could be easily simulated with this.
I have to find out, how I could fix a spring in a compressed stage
and then release it 180 degrees later.
If anybody know, please send me a private mail.
Thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Revised. Needed dual guides to keep from falling:
Comments?
it appears that we are converging on zero-point
just not as rapidly as i expected
Stefan will be rounding each set of numbers toward the advantage of hope
the nasty skeptics will keep adding decimal places of accuracy
the advantage will decimate but only after eighty three more pages
Don't they call this calculus?
@gaby,
good idea with the SMOT ramp.
If Chas is still buying the real big ball bearings he could really use it and get it
overunity this way for sure.
Stephan,
Thanks :)
Well, the point was not to make the most efficient device. Rather to proove
that a device could be made to be Overunity. Which I believe it can be.
I dont believe anyone has seen and fully understood the workings of the
other gravity device...?
Dear Ash.
I have updated my campbell.doc information to Version 1.1. See:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48484.html#msg48484
I included some valuable discussion points from other Forum Members. I had to admit that I have never seen such high quality discussions - even in the steorn.com forum.
I shall try to leave only one version on this forum at any one time.
Regards,
Lawrence Tseung
Sure you can zero, but now you have to use energy to lift the balls up to the starting point, more waste in the system, still no gain
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 06:47:48 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 06:42:55 PM
@Stefan
Please...Tell us how you would evenly space a cup every 29 degrees then on a 360 degree circle. Only a whole number of cups, please.
I have poured and consumed two shots of Glen Livet, I am ready to hear your answer.
Humbugger
;D ;D ;D
(Better that it's no longer necessary do do it...
Already proved that Campbell's wheel is not working. See above.)
Tinu
The red ball lays 14,5 degrees away from the horizontal plane,
so torque= sin (14,5 degrees) x 4 distance = 3.87
Surely every other slot is at 30 degrees
and Tinu I still have the advantage:
3.87 to 3.73
@ zero,
Only one comment: do the math, pls and post it.
Tx,
Tinu
P.S If this is about Campbell's device, I guess it's time to prepare us closing the subject, with a clear verdict that it is not working. PERIOD
Any objection?
For any other 'improvements' and variations, I suggest starting a new thread.
There is Always energy lifting the balls.
The difference is How much is needed?
There is surely more friction.. but with linear bearings and
other low friction devices, one can see a high gain of
leverage power with very little additional friction...
Which basically means more work done with less
input energy.
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:03:48 PM
@ zero,
Only one comment: do the math, pls and post it.
Tx,
Tinu
P.S If this is about Campbell's device, I guess it's time to prepare us closing the subject, with a clear verdict that it is not working. PERIOD
Any objection?
For any other 'improvements' and variations, I suggest starting a new thread.
Tinu,
I made the math, look above !
Tinu I still have the advantage:
3.87 to 3.73
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:03:48 PM
Only one comment: do the math, pls and post it.
Tx,
Tinu
P.S If this is about Campbell's device, I guess it's time to prepare us closing the subject, with a clear verdict that it is not working. PERIOD
Any objection?
For any other 'improvements' and variations, I suggest starting a new thread.
Not so fast...I want to hear how Stefan arranges a whole number of ball receptacles at 29 degrees each yet evenly around the wheel. I have been accused of inappropriate use of ridicule. It is only fair that I be shown exactly why the idea of building the wheel with 29 degree increments is not ridiculous. Then I will voluntarily ban myself, cut off both my hands, pour the remainder of the Glen Livet into my eyes and light it on fire. I promise.
Humbugger
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:03:48 PM
@ zero,
Only one comment: do the math, pls and post it.
Tx,
Tinu
P.S If this is about Campbell's device, I guess it's time to prepare us closing the subject, with a clear verdict that it is not working. PERIOD
Any objection?
For any other 'improvements' and variations, I suggest starting a new thread.
Tinu,
I made the math, look above !
Tinu I still have the advantage:
3.87 to 3.73
What math?!!!
4 is not even a valid radius!
You people really don't read it, do you?
Everyone is just talking...
Tinu
The only error I see,
that I don?t know for sure, if I am at 4x distance
really at 14.5 degrees or already lower ?
But when the red ball comes into the horizontal plane, I am
at distance 4 where cos 0 degrees = 1, so there I would have the advantage
of 4 to 3.73 !
Sorry Tinu,
We still haven't discussed the Chas Campbell device, only the gravity wheel. In case you have forgotten I post again the diagram given to me by Patrick Kelly from Panacea.
Any comments on this????
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fchascampbell.bmp&hash=1f289a7d9d65f0b3599cfbf2be66727c893f3a50)
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:03:48 PM
@ zero,
Only one comment: do the math, pls and post it.
Tx,
Tinu
P.S If this is about Campbell's device, I guess it's time to prepare us closing the subject, with a clear verdict that it is not working. PERIOD
Any objection?
For any other 'improvements' and variations, I suggest starting a new thread.
Tinu,
I made the math, look above !
Tinu I still have the advantage:
3.87 to 3.73
What math?!!!
4 is not even a valid radius!
You people really don't read it, do you?
Everyone is just talking...
Tinu
Tinu,
you did not take a look at the drawing.
I always wanted to go out distance 4x not
just 3.8xxxx !
Hans lenk jetzt nicht ab !
Wir warten immer noch auf eine Rechnung von Dir ! ;)
Hans, don?t through the pill away, we are still waiting for a calculation from you ! ;)
Stefan
I want to hear how Charles arranges a whole number of ball receptacles at 29 degrees each yet evenly around the wheel.
I have been accused of inappropriate use of ridicule. It is only fair that I be shown exactly why the idea of building the wheel with 29 degree increments is not ridiculous.
Then I will voluntarily ban myself, cut off both my hands, pour the remainder of the Glen Livet into my eyes and light it on fire. I promise. And swallow the pill Hans is supposed to be keeping.
Humbugger
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 07:15:26 PM
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:03:48 PM
@ zero,
Only one comment: do the math, pls and post it.
Tx,
Tinu
P.S If this is about Campbell's device, I guess it's time to prepare us closing the subject, with a clear verdict that it is not working. PERIOD
Any objection?
For any other 'improvements' and variations, I suggest starting a new thread.
Tinu,
I made the math, look above !
Tinu I still have the advantage:
3.87 to 3.73
What math?!!!
4 is not even a valid radius!
You people really don't read it, do you?
Everyone is just talking...
Tinu
Tinu,
you did not take a look at the drawing.
I always wanted to go out distance 4x not
just 3.8xxxx !
And I already explained, even before you ask it, loong ago, that by doing so (by going beyond 3.8...) you will deplete the balls.
You simply don't have enough balls to go to that distance. At that distance a ball stays for a small angle on the outer rim; in order to cover 2pi radians, you need more and more balls. Who's gonna lift them back?! You lift one ball at 30 degrees. That's all you lift!
You may be in 'advantage', on paper, but the machine will run untill all the bals are waiting in the line on the down side.
Please read my post.
Tx,
Tinu
Tach Stefan,
Meine Rechnung hast Du doch schon, Grad 29 - 30, 3.6 auf einer Seite, nix auf der anderen und nicht genug Energie im System um das zu ueberwinden. Mehr braucht man nicht.
My calculation is there, degree 29 - 30, 3,6 on one side zip on the other and not enough energy in the system to carry it through. What more is there to say?
Hans von Lieven
Anyway, I think the gravity wheel from Chas can only be
made to work efficintly and overcome the total friction,
if he really uses something like a very big SMOT ramp in his system and gain
height this way...( as Gaby has pointed out)
So let us just wait and see, what Ash will report next from the
next visit on the 15th.
I think the Bob Kostoff design from this thread
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2326.0.html
is much more
interesting !
Okay, for the next days I am done with the Chas gravity
device.
It is sure, that when you bring a weight down in the gravity field,
its potential energy is lost.
You can only regain it, if you stored it in springs
and this is also not the case in Chas?s wheel.
So the Bob Kostoff design is a much better gravity converter,
cause it stores the potential weight energies in springs
and release them again, when needed and
also uses the centrifugal forces to help
regauge the system and extract energy from them.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:03:48 PM
@ zero,
Only one comment: do the math, pls and post it.
Tx,
Tinu
P.S If this is about Campbell's device, I guess it's time to prepare us closing the subject, with a clear verdict that it is not working. PERIOD
Any objection?
For any other 'improvements' and variations, I suggest starting a new thread.
Tinu,
I made the math, look above !
Tinu I still have the advantage:
3.87 to 3.73
28.9 degrees is theoretical max, also your scoops must be divisable by 360, even if it was you didn't add the fraction of extra balls to the left side that you took away from the right side
180 degrees at 30 degree increments = 6 balls
180 degrees at 29 degree increments = 6.2068965517241379310344827586207 balls
28.9 degrees at 30 degree increments = 0.96333333333333333333333333333333 balls
28.9 degrees at 29 degrees increments = 0.99655172413793103448275862068966 balls
pic for you and zero
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lasers.org%2Fou%2Fforzero.gif&hash=9dfc61c807ccf8148f06c192a5684220e939fead)
http://img.go-here.nl/chas-is-cool.png
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 06:59:06 PM
good idea with the SMOT ramp.
If Chas is still buying the real big ball bearings he could really use it and get it
overunity this way for sure.
I think the device can be much smaller like this?
It will be more complicated to drop the balls out of the smot in time.
The image also tries to illustrate to curve the ball inwards. Pulling the mass towards the center should accelerate the wheel.
My instinct says it should give more leverage as just leaving it on the rim you see. ;)
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 07:22:49 PM
Stefan
I want to hear how Charles arranges a whole number of ball receptacles at 29 degrees each yet evenly around the wheel.
I have been accused of inappropriate use of ridicule. It is only fair that I be shown exactly why the idea of building the wheel with 29 degree increments is not ridiculous.
Then I will voluntarily ban myself, cut off both my hands, pour the remainder of the Glen Livet into my eyes and light it on fire. I promise. And swallow the pill Hans is supposed to be keeping.
Humbugger
Hum
you still don?t understand...
probably you missed the physics lesson where the torque arm
calculations was done...
Of course the wheel has slots every 30 degrees.
Only my right left ball sits at 14.5 degrees above the horizontal plane
4 x distance away.
Very easy to calculate all the torques as I have done.
No more need to ridicule.
Still 3.87 to 3.73 advantage at 14.5 degrees and
when the red ball has gone down to the horizontal plane,
the advantage rises to 4 to 3.73, so the yellow balls
are lifted faster !
Exactly Stefan,
Yyou need an input of energy to make it work, but why do that? Why not use the energy you have to do something with rather than injecting it into a system that at best will only run but not produce work. Where is the sense in that?
Hans von Lieven
Once again I have to agree with Hum. The one falling ball is having to lift all off the remaining balls. I've built a few gravity wheels and have used tubes in mine....none have worked. I personally will not try to replicate another gravity wheel until I see one run for a full day carrying a slight load.
Rich
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 09, 2007, 07:29:15 PM
Exactly Stefan,
You need an input of energy to make it work, but why do that? Why not use the energy you have to do something with rather than injecting it into a system that at best will only run but not produce work. Where is the sense in that?
Hans von Lieven
Sorry guys, pushed the wrong button
Quote from: Humbugger link=topic=2487.msg48618#msg48618
I have been accused of inappropriate use of ridicule.
Of course, you don't fool us, you can do much better as this. :)
What do you think about spiraling the ball inwards rather then leaving it on the rim?
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:22:55 PM
And I already explained, even before you ask it, loong ago, that by doing so (by going beyond 3.8...) you will deplete the balls.
Not at all, if you shortly stop the wheel !
Have a look again at the picture !
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2487.0%3Battach%3D12622&hash=b734cf960f93e668e3c30cf101d0e78f3ba118cf)
There will always be one red ball at the right side and enough blue balls
at the bottom !
I guess by now you did run out of arguments...
Quote from: markdansie on September 09, 2007, 03:37:50 PM
The trouble with not taking a scientific approach to validating this project is it does more damage than good to the Free Energy Cause. The same thing happenned with the Joe Cell, it was surrounded by cultish believers but to this day not one Joe cell can be produced that will run a car without fuel. the ony people to benefit were the stailess steel vendors.
I also find it amusing that a person like myself who is a member of the New Energy Congress, who has travelled the world evaluating these types of technologies (I have had 37 flights this year including 16 internationals) is not allowed to attend a demonstration of this device. Why????
I guess the next step is to try and discredit me, or as in the case of the Joe Cell people threaten me.
Mark
of the 37 flights.. have you seen anything of interest or promising? anything you could share so we stop talking about this? or are we going to have to dig up the math for Springs now?
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 09, 2007, 07:15:23 PM
Sorry Tinu,
We still haven't discussed the Chas Campbell device, only the gravity wheel. In case you have forgotten I post again the diagram given to me by Patrick Kelly from Panacea.
Any comments on this????
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fchascampbell.bmp&hash=1f289a7d9d65f0b3599cfbf2be66727c893f3a50)
Hans von Lieven
lol! that's an easy one.
comments? yes, one, for the inventor: make it work first...
Sorry Stefan,
I missed nothing here, it is not a question of torque in the above example, it is a question of INSUFFICIENT MOVEMENT UNDER TORQUE.
The longer the lever, the more it can lift, true, but also the longer the travel of the long side of the lever to gain the same HEIGHT of the load as with a shorter lever with the same amount of travel (in degrees)
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:28:46 PM
http://img.go-here.nl/chas-is-cool.png
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 06:59:06 PM
good idea with the SMOT ramp.
If Chas is still buying the real big ball bearings he could really use it and get it
overunity this way for sure.
I think the device can be much smaller like this?
It will be more complicated to drop the balls out of the smot in time.
The image also tries to illustrate to curve the ball inwards. Pulling the mass towards the center should accelerate the wheel.
My instinct says it should give more leverage as just leaving it on the rim you see. ;)
if you got a working smot, it would work... could think of a better way to gain energy from it.. also you would need to adjust the number of ball catches on the upswing to account for the gain in outer wheel distance.
your spiral ramp? when would the balls be adding mass to the outer wheel? we need to increase the time the outer wheel has mass to lift the mass on the upswing.
maybe we could teleport the balls to the top, skip the inner wheel.. or a static worm hole
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 07:22:49 PM
Stefan
I want to hear how Charles arranges a whole number of ball receptacles at 29 degrees each yet evenly around the wheel.
I have been accused of inappropriate use of ridicule. It is only fair that I be shown exactly why the idea of building the wheel with 29 degree increments is not ridiculous.
Then I will voluntarily ban myself, cut off both my hands, pour the remainder of the Glen Livet into my eyes and light it on fire. I promise. And swallow the pill Hans is supposed to be keeping.
Humbugger
in lieu of any explanation, to avoid ROS, i must apparently agree that the Charles wheel will probably only work when fitted with an appropriate pair of powerful SMOTs so that the balls will roll rapidly uphill.
then limitations imposed by the feed and return ramps will be removed. there can be six balls on the right side with any diameter. the SMOTs can maybe lift the balls almost vertically, so maybe only five balls on the right, six on the left.
but the distance can be anything, fifty to one even a hundred to one. the machine could have a lot of power with the right pair of SMOTs and the giant steel balls. zero's ideas can be worked in for an extra boost. Maybe the SMOTS can fire the balls hard at a 45 degree titanium plate angled to reflect the extra additional forces into the direction of rotation. Hmmm...
Humbugger Caves In after only Five Whiskeys ~ Must be getting old...
G'day rMuD,
Ever heard of Cavorite?? That is the shot here to make this thing work. :-)
Hans von Lieven
smot:
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 07:46:45 PM
also you would need to adjust the number of ball catches on the upswing to account for the gain in outer wheel distance.
It will be tricky to tune but it's forgiving as the ball can drop a bit furhter and strike a bit harder. The wheel does need to be really sollid to lead out the pulse I think.
Quoteyour spiral ramp? when would the balls be adding mass to the outer wheel? we need to increase the time the outer wheel has mass to lift the mass on the upswing.
If you pull mass closer to the axle it will lead out extra momentums.
Quotemaybe we could teleport the balls to the top, skip the inner wheel.. or a static worm hole
A beam can be slided allowing mass to teleport from one end to the other. Then a magnet can push the beam a bit thus teleport the mass to the other end.
Something like that?
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 09, 2007, 07:29:15 PM
Exactly Stefan,
Yyou need an input of energy to make it work, but why do that? Why not use the energy you have to do something with rather than injecting it into a system that at best will only run but not produce work. Where is the sense in that?
It will be an interesting learning process. Are you familiar with the theory of evolution? Some people really believe they can evolve a concept up to a point where it does work. lol This isn't as insane as it sounds, there are way to much people who have claimed to be able to do just that. And non of them was ever granted a good paper.
In reality it's much more important to document your errors as it is to document your victories. Because sooner or later you will end up repeating the same mistake perpetually.
Quote from: tinu on September 09, 2007, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 09, 2007, 07:15:23 PM
Sorry Tinu,
We still haven't discussed the Chas Campbell device, only the gravity wheel. In case you have forgotten I post again the diagram given to me by Patrick Kelly from Panacea.
Any comments on this????
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fchascampbell.bmp&hash=1f289a7d9d65f0b3599cfbf2be66727c893f3a50)
Hans von Lieven
lol! that's an easy one.
comments? yes, one, for the inventor: make it work first...
It is interesting to entertain the weirdness of this machine and explore it's variations. You have a virtual reality 3D engine in your head. You can make it how ever you like.
Now you picture a room with each and every overunity machine using balls and wheels and you start ripping parts off them and sticking them in all the wrong places.
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 :D
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 09, 2007, 07:56:04 PM
G'day rMuD,
Ever heard of Cavorite?? That is the shot here to make this thing work. :-)
Hans von Lieven
But I heard its almost as expensive as unobtainium. Glad I kept all my 1943 copper cents. Maybe I can trade them in for some cavorite somewhere.
Humbugger
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
smot:
Now you picture a room with each and every overunity machine using balls and wheels and you start ripping parts off them and sticking them in all the wrong places.
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 :D
Gaby...and I thought you were just another knucklehead...this is masterfully brilliant. For this, I am going to give you my real photograph and email address:
lightninhopkins@heaven.org
I was just viewing chas original video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Y8DBXJTt8&NR=1
He has great ideas but they are not finished humpy.
Gaby, you are a genius,
You have just solved the gravity wheel problem. Who would have thought the answer was THAT simple.
USE CATS INSTEAD OF BALLS !!!!
Congratulations, now the ramps can be really steep.
Hans von Lieven
Post deleted by Babes In Black to save annoying scrolling for those who care to adhere to the topic. This way, you can go right to Ash's post without ever seeing any distracting pictures of Morgan Fairchild in a nice black evening dress. We return you now to your regular programming.
(the next post is actually pretty darn cool to watch, although not really an energy problem panacea)
I think Ashtweth got the idea to post it subliminally when he saw those gorgeous robust Fairchild curves
In fact, I think that little smiley guy rolling his eyes up here is hoping I'll put her back...sorry smiley guy!
For those who like to stay on topic.. ::).
Stuff given to me by email
check out the attached video.!!!If this doesn't prove that using gravity but also putting a weight into a radius gives you added gains then I give up.The ball has further to travel and yet will increase in speed gaining greater kinetic energy than a normal straight fall
" look at this video of the 2 balls rolling, and she immediately said the rail is not a perfect curve, and the beginning of the semicircle is shaped differently than the other side of the curvature.
Heck, there is the clue to the bonus energy, , This is the real thing for advancements if you can see it."
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 07:28:51 PM
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 07:22:49 PM
Stefan
I want to hear how Charles arranges a whole number of ball receptacles at 29 degrees each yet evenly around the wheel.
I have been accused of inappropriate use of ridicule. It is only fair that I be shown exactly why the idea of building the wheel with 29 degree increments is not ridiculous.
Then I will voluntarily ban myself, cut off both my hands, pour the remainder of the Glen Livet into my eyes and light it on fire. I promise. And swallow the pill Hans is supposed to be keeping.
Humbugger
Hum
you still don?t understand...
probably you missed the physics lesson where the torque arm
calculations was done...
Of course the wheel has slots every 30 degrees.
Only my right left ball sits at 14.5 degrees above the horizontal plane
4 x distance away.
Very easy to calculate all the torques as I have done.
No more need to ridicule.
Still 3.87 to 3.73 advantage at 14.5 degrees and
when the red ball has gone down to the horizontal plane,
the advantage rises to 4 to 3.73, so the yellow balls
are lifted faster !
I can do trig and add torque moments. I made a mistake in thinking you had proposed putting the cups at 29 degree increments because I refused to believe (and still do) that you could possibly still be claiming you had 29 degrees to work with after all that had been said about that matter.
Indeed, for a 4:1 setup, the exact number of degrees you have with no SMOTs and zero slopes on the ramps (your best case yet unrealizable-in-practice conditions, you have, to four places, 28.9550 degrees, not 29. You must also include the 1.0450 degrees during which no ball is on the wheel and subtract that appropriately. That's 1.0450/30 of the time where the machine will want to run backward which equalizes your calculated forward advantage ratio and cancels it.
I apologize for misunderstanding and thinking you would propose putting 29 degree spaced cups on the wheel. Sometimes I have no sense of what your reality limits are.
When one opens the Pandora's box of rejecting basic laws of physics and thermodynamics, one loses a lot of assumptions that provide a stable common ground for discussion. I respect your knowledge and intelligence but I have no predictable sense of your beliefs and which physical laws you respect and accept, since you seem to be "arbitrarily selective" based on the context in that matter. in your position, I can understand that. I also get confused when you say things like "my right left ball", as above.
I'll try harder to refrain from outright ridicule. It does give the impression of pompous arrogance. Sorry.
Humbugger
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 09, 2007, 07:56:04 PM
G'day rMuD,
Ever heard of Cavorite?? That is the shot here to make this thing work. :-)
Hans von Lieven
I hear White Powder Gold will work too :)
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 09, 2007, 09:10:34 PM
For those who like to stay on topic.. ::).
Stuff given to me by email
check out the attached video.!!!If this doesn't prove that using gravity but also putting a weight into a radius gives you added gains then I give up.The ball has further to travel and yet will increase in speed gaining greater kinetic energy than a normal straight fall
" look at this video of the 2 balls rolling, and she immediately said the rail is not a perfect curve, and the beginning of the semicircle is shaped differently than the other side of the curvature.
Heck, there is the clue to the bonus energy, , This is the real thing for advancements if you can see it."
impressive, I was almost fooled by it
I see that the stop at the end of the ramp is of the same height
but the last frame shows the near ball lower on the track to the back stop
though the track appears to be at the same height at the end.. the track is wider giving the extra downward forceI completely recant what I said, I said things before I confirmed them, that video is absolutely true and would happen
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
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 :D
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
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 09, 2007, 09:10:34 PM
For those who like to stay on topic.. ::).
Stuff given to me by email
check out the attached video.!!!If this doesn't prove that using gravity but also putting a weight into a radius gives you added gains then I give up.The ball has further to travel and yet will increase in speed gaining greater kinetic energy than a normal straight fall
" look at this video of the 2 balls rolling, and she immediately said the rail is not a perfect curve, and the beginning of the semicircle is shaped differently than the other side of the curvature.
Heck, there is the clue to the bonus energy, , This is the real thing for advancements if you can see it."
Hi Ash,
exactly for this video I was looking for.
The 2 balls have the same potential energy at the end, cause,
if you let them to jump from the tracks, they bounced up at the same
distance !
BUT: one ball is much more earlier there than the other.
This can be used to speed up the ball and have it at 4x distance much earlier than
normal flat track rolling.
Thus you would not need to stop the wheel to wait for the ball to reach the 4x distance.
There is even a better video of these 2 ball experiment, where you can see it much
better, that one ball come to the end much faster...
Thanks for finding the video.
Regards, Stefan.
I don't know if you can tolerate it.. wife already threw me out of the living room... but watch the MTV Video awards... one of the companies I sit on the board for are providing the Laser effects for some of the Preformances.. or maybe just Linkin Park near the end, it's live so I don't know exactly where were used yet
Okay, should I now delete all the offtopic postings and the nice blond bomdshell ?
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
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 :D
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?
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:33:23 PM
impressive, I was almost fooled by it
I see that the stop at the end of the ramp is of the same height
but the last frame shows the near ball lower on the track to the back stop
though the track appears to be at the same height at the end.. the track is wider giving the extra downward force
I agree that is a really clever experiment. According to what I know about the laws of physics, this should be impossible. I do not think the track is wider at the end, but I do think that it is lower. If you look very carefully, the uphill side does not seem as steep at the downhill side, so I think the ball ends up lower that it does on the top track.
I thought I might ask here (sorry of topic)
does anyone know of a good 3d fem software for magnet research
My email is mark.dansie@advatel.biz
Thanks
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 09:49:30 PM
Okay, should I now delete all the offtopic postings and the nice blond bomdshell ?
The other way around would be better. Start a new topic and give us an update on the research done.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 09:12:31 PMWhen one opens the Pandora's box of rejecting basic laws of physics and thermodynamics, one loses a lot of assumptions that provide a stable common ground for discussion.
everything you cant make evident is nonsense :-)
Okay, here is a better explanation and better movie of the 2 balls crossing with
different speed the same distance, although they have at the end the same
potential and kinetic energy:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,209.0.html
quoated from:
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/demo/demobook/mechpage.htm
* High / Low Road Track:
A race between two balls as they move between the same change in potential energy.
One follows a straight track and the other follows a longer curved track.
The curved track ball finishes first due to higher kinetic energy.
=================================
This can be definately used by Chad to speed up the balls reaching their far end !
Okay, so this now could be a final working solution,
without using a SMOT ramp.
If somebody tells me, how I could simulate these 30 degrees slots taking the yellow
balls inside, I could simulate this in WM2D.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: Hi Ash,
please forward this diagram to Chas, when you visit him again.
Many thanks.
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
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 :D
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
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 10:28:43 PM
Okay, so this now could be a final working solution,
without using a SMOT ramp.
If somebody tells me, how I could simulate these 30 degrees slots taking the yellow
balls inside, I could simulate this in WM2D.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: Hi Ash,
please forward this diagram to Chas, when you visit him again.
Many thanks.
There is a problem on the lift side, where you have the balls surrounded by rails (drawn in red) to bring them closer to the center. True, you initially gain by doing this, but the problem will be once the balls are lifted above the center of the wheel. What will happen is that the balls get squeezed in the narrow angle, greatly increasing the friction involved in lifting them to the top.
Also, can anyone else comment on the balls and the two ramps experiment? I am a novice at this, but this seems to be wrong somehow. To make the ball arrive faster should take energy, but if the ball ends up at the same altitude as before, then the PE to KE exchange is equal, so I do not understand how this can happen.
Hi guys, okay more for you to scratch your heads with (check attachments)
"found the original pic:
http://www.hcrs.at/BILDER/KUGEL2.JPG
Made the autocad drawing, then imported into Silux mechanical simulation.
The upper ball finishes first, because it has to go lower way and lower
friction losses. If I turn off the friction they should arrive at the same
time. This is the potential energy demonstration E=mgh, where you cannot
normally trick the energy. (conventional thinking)
Edit,
Hi Stefan, sure thing just catching up on the emails now and updating the web site will answer your email and post the results in the thread
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 09, 2007, 10:48:07 PM
Hi guys, okay more for you to scratch your heads with (check attachments)
"found the original pic:
http://www.hcrs.at/BILDER/KUGEL2.JPG
Made the autocad drawing, then imported into Silux mechanical simulation.
The upper ball finishes first, because it has to go lower way and lower
friction losses. If I turn off the friction they should arrive at the same
time. This is the potential energy demonstration E=mgh, where you cannot
normally trick the energy. (conventional thinking)
Edit,
Hi Stefan, sure thing just catching up on the emails now and updating the web site will answer your email and post the results in the thread
I did a little digging and I was wrong about this being impossible. This conforms with the laws of physics and is is related to the Brachistrochone curve problem. The Brachistochrone curve is the curve of fastest descent, so it is indeed true that two objects can arrive at the destination point at different times. Here is the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone)
However, I do not see how this really matters to the gravity wheel. We are already free to have as many balls in queue as we need, so we do not care about getting to the end of the ramp faster.
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.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 11:09:19 PM
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...]
OK, I now see how Hum wanted to pull his hair out. Just pretend there are lots of balls on the upper ramp. When one exits the lift, there is already a ball waiting to be taken down on the other side of the ramp. This has been discussed already, I think, and there are no issues with timing. The entire problem is that the receptacle that should be taking the ball down is still above where it needs to be in order for the ball to get into it. Even if a ball magically teleported from the lift to the waiting position, it still has no place to go yet.
QuoteSure 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.
Well, you can only curve so much, so I think you will still have a friction problem. You have brought the balls so close to the center that it leaves a very steep angle of ascent. You cannot help but squeeze them.
Also, even with no friction, I see no advantage to bringing the balls closer in. You are just temporarily playing with leverage. The closer in they are, the less they are lifted, given an equal movement by the outer wheel, so you do not gain anything by doing this. At the end of the day, they still have to get all the way up to the top. So what you have gained below wheel center, you lose above wheel center.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 11:09:19 PM
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
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:33:23 PM
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 09, 2007, 09:10:34 PM
For those who like to stay on topic.. ::).
Stuff given to me by email
check out the attached video.!!!If this doesn't prove that using gravity but also putting a weight into a radius gives you added gains then I give up.The ball has further to travel and yet will increase in speed gaining greater kinetic energy than a normal straight fall
" look at this video of the 2 balls rolling, and she immediately said the rail is not a perfect curve, and the beginning of the semicircle is shaped differently than the other side of the curvature.
Heck, there is the clue to the bonus energy, , This is the real thing for advancements if you can see it."
impressive, I was almost fooled by it
I see that the stop at the end of the ramp is of the same height
but the last frame shows the near ball lower on the track to the back stop
though the track appears to be at the same height at the end.. the track is wider giving the extra downward force
I completely recant what I said, I said things before I confirmed them, that video is absolutely true and would happen
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 infinityI am foolish again... completely wrong
Quote from: rMuD on September 10, 2007, 12:12:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 11:35:13 PM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 11:09:19 PM
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.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 10, 2007, 12:19:32 AM
Quote from: rMuD on September 10, 2007, 12:12:05 AM
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
Quote from: rMuD on September 10, 2007, 12:39:59 AM
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 10, 2007, 12:19:32 AM
Quote from: rMuD on September 10, 2007, 12:12:05 AM
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 slowerI now can picture this as a acceleration curve, sorry for being me
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
"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
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.
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.
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
@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
@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. ;D
And don?t forget the above advice! ;)
Tinu
Ohhh, I almost forgot!
Prepare adding also
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 11:35:13 PM
...the SMOTs, the Magnetic ICs, the Pulse Lead-out Anti-Graviton cylinders and the Magnesium Grignard Reactors.
@tinu
"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."
;D Problem is, no functional overunity device is ever clearly defined as yet in all of history, so you might get a little out of practice on your skills if you follow your own advice there, pardner!
You sound like me after my first "flat rate package quoted" freelance consulting design project. I foolishly told the guy he didn't have to pay me until it was finished and working to specs, but he changed the specs a week before I was done...nine times! It's a real dilemma when you end up working for free...at least you're going in knowing that!
Humb
srawofni put up a still picture of a wheel. I wouldnt call that a defeat.
Sorry, but I dont trust anything that gets posted as fact. Anyone can
change data and manipulate and fake things, because of vested
interests.
Besides the software not working 100%, he didnt take into consideration
the angled drop pushes, as Ive stated time and time again.
Quote from: zero on September 10, 2007, 12:12:11 PM
srawofni put up a still picture of a wheel. I wouldnt call that a defeat.
Sorry, but I dont trust anything that gets posted as fact. Anyone can
change data and manipulate and fake things, because of vested
interests.
Besides the software not working 100%, he didnt take into consideration
the angled drop pushes, as Ive stated time and time again.
You keep bringing up these drops. You must understand there is no free ride with them. The cost to the drop is that the ball could have already been in the wheel, but instead it waited in position for the wheel to lower to accommodate the angle of the drop. In the simulated scenario, there is no drop because we assume the ball is magically teleported into position, so there is no reason to angle it in, but nothing is lost this way. True, the extra momentum of the dropping ball is not imparted to the wheel, but instead the wheel gets to enjoy the benefit of the ball's weight sooner.
And please, no offers to drop a keg on my head or boulder on my back. :)
The ball is NOT waiting - it IS IN THE WHEEL!!!
As in my pic above.. you can see the ramp is PART of the
lever, which is the same as Chas's wheel setup.
When the ball rolls on his down-slanted PVC "intake" pipes, Gravity is still pulling it down
with the same force. But additionally, when the ball hits the waiting spot - it imparts
the balls extra energy to the wheel.
The ball has gained energy from rotation, motion, acceleration, and the ability for near
free-fall speed (which the wheel would otherwise restrict).
Just like my pic, the teeter which has the ramp will gain more energy output.
And just like my pic where THE RAMP IS PART OF THE MOVEMENT DEVICE,
(IE: ITS NOT WAITING TO IMPART GRAVITY!!!) Chas's device works the same
way!!!
To say otherwise is a rejection of physics!
Quote from: FreeEnergy on September 07, 2007, 09:31:16 PM
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D1513.0%3Battach%3D3183%3Bimage&hash=a1054852177b9b4c8e896ddbd92ed230883488f9)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1513.0.html
did anyone ever look at this? or this thread was going too fast for you guys?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 10, 2007, 12:55:26 PM
True, the extra momentum of the dropping ball is not imparted to the wheel, but instead the wheel gets to enjoy the benefit of the ball's weight sooner.
No it does not, like this the mass is moving slower as the wheel when it's put on. A common mistake of skeptics is to simplify a stadium to make it easy to debunk.
If you take the balls out it doesn't work either? lol?
G'day FreeEnergy and all,
The optimum for a system such as this is to get the ball as quickly as possible to the outside perimeter where it does the most good and keep it there as long as you possibly can.
Your design wastes much of what little energy there is to start with by not using its full potential.
Valiant try though, shows you are thinking and are prepared to have a go, good attributes.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: zero on September 10, 2007, 03:03:57 PM
The ball is NOT waiting - it IS IN THE WHEEL!!!
My mistake on that, but it does not matter. Even if the ramp is in the wheel, you end up with the same result. While the ball is sliding down the ramp, the ramp is absorbing some but not all of the weight (not as much as if the ball was teleported into the cup), and also in process braking the fall of the ball. When the ball does land in the cup, it does not land as hard as it would have had it simply dropped. In your analagy, it would be like me trying to catch a keg of beer as it rolled down a 30 degree ramp versus trying to catch it dropped from the top of the ramp coming straight down. The ramp absorbs some of the force, so it is much easier for me to catch it without dying.
It all comes out even in the end. Teleporting the ball into the cup but doing it earlier equals dropping the ball into a ramp in the wheel and having it exert a partial force on the way down the ramp and the remainder of its force on impact. I suspect I am not convincing you, but I just cannot explain it any better.
And Gaby, I did not understand what you said. I know English is not your first language, but all I got was that I oversimplified it and "LOL!"
"While the ball is sliding down the ramp, the ramp is absorbing some but not all of the weight"
Why? If you are on a moving train, and you were pushed in a cart down the isle,
gravity is always pulling you down.
Are you saying that if everyone were in moving carts, the weight would half?
Also, the time it takes for the ball to traverse the slide is very small. Yet, the
end resulting force blast it delievers at the bottom is much greater.
"it does not land as hard as it would have had it simply dropped"
Of course. However, if you look at the setup from the 2d drawing.. there is
no "DROP" happening. There is a ball rolling gently into a cup.
A DROP would need some distance to allow gravity to maximize the
pull. To get full terminal velocity. There is no such distance.
However, one could modify the design to cause a more vertical drop,
which might gather more energy. In one of my pics "forces.jpg" you
can see how I modified the slope to impact at a straight angle...
expelling more force downwards instead of at a diagonal angle.
Weather or not you can catch a Keg is not pertinent to the machine ;) lol
"Teleporting the ball into the cup but doing it earlier equals dropping the ball into a ramp in the wheel "
Wrong again. You are IMPLYING that you are "Dropping" the ball again, which you are not
in the 2d drawing. Always messing the facts up... ::)
And because you are not, the energy output with at least a sloped drop WILL result
in GREATER OUTPUT ENERGY.
Since you all like playing with billiard balls, here's one I came up with a few weeks ago.
I thought of using billiard balls because they are relatively heavy for their size and easy to obtain.
The pulley is a fly wheel to give the system just enough inertia to work properly.
The ramp in the center can either be a see-saw type ramp, OR two stationary ramps that curve around each other (not shown).
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2Fgraveng1.jpg&hash=21a0c638a6ea47719c15b7c1220fbe8132200b44)
Gravitar, someone beat you to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOGHXjG2U8c&mode=related&search=
Uses a spring like system - and ocean waves to generate power.
Quote from: zero on September 10, 2007, 07:44:43 PM
Gravitar, someone beat you to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOGHXjG2U8c&mode=related&search=
Uses a spring like system - and ocean waves to generate power.
That's pretty cool, but it's got nothing to do with my setup.
Whoops. Sorry about that. Your drawing was a little confusing at first.
Looks interesting.
G'day all,
This is a pretty cool idea Gravitar, though I cannot see a flywheel improving performance, I feel it would rather impede, perhaps a pendulum of the correct length (tuned to the frequency of the device) might be more appropriate.
Full marks for originality.
Hans von Lieven
Guys your gonna see new test concepts on the 15th video, new footage has been done, we have decided we are going to raise 1500$ to help Chas get the proper materials he says should make his wheel turn.
All will be open sourced.
Am enjoying the posting now, would like to start a new updated thread, if some one wants too i think it would be better to start with this when the NEW test data comes in.
Maybe use the info so far on improving his wheel as Improvised Chas wheel idea
the next thread can be the test data and updates? just an idea let me know.
regards
ashtweth
These are two vertical guides that each stand freely on either side of the Chas Wheel. The frame is red, the Chas Wheel is black. The blue are rollers that act as bearings when the Chas Wheel brushes up against it.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2FWHEELGUIDES.jpg&hash=635fd3ae94790deae14456da075ea874cafbf9d8)
This would help cut down on the oscillations drastically with a minimum of friction.
Stiffening the frame of the wheel itself would be the other thing to do.
Quote from: GraViTaR on September 10, 2007, 07:38:35 PM
Since you all like playing with billiard balls, here's one I came up with a few weeks ago.
I thought of using billiard balls because they are relatively heavy for their size and easy to obtain.
The pulley is a fly wheel to give the system just enough inertia to work properly.
The ramp in the center can either be a see-saw type ramp, OR two stationary ramps that curve around each other (not shown).
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb375%2FHollywoodTom%2Fgraveng1.jpg&hash=21a0c638a6ea47719c15b7c1220fbe8132200b44)
@Gravitar
Good Idea simple to proofe
helmut
Quote from: srawofni on September 10, 2007, 07:11:02 AM
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
<<Hi Srawofni,
After countless hours of making drowings there is a gravity design that I came up with. (This was few years back)
But to built this thing it's costly! Time and money etc.
Now that I see you have the proper understanding and the software to simulate mechanical wheel, would you be willing to simulate my design?
If so I would be very grateful, please send me short note so I would know where to send the design.
Thanks so much
Mem>>
@Gravitar: this has to be the most genious concept I have seen over here. Thumbs up!
As a Humburger quotes old lad Albert: everything should be made as simple as possible
G'day all,
Sorry guys, the Gravitar device does not work as it is, unfortunately. Here is why:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fgraveng2.jpg&hash=bfb2cbd5b8143abac10f090b5d5492ed5930ef64)
When the container on the right hits this position it cannot go further down as all the weight now rests on the pin and there is insufficient power on the right to lower it any further and bring the other side back into play.
Pity, it was such an inspired idea. I guess it's back to the drawing board one more time. :-(
Hans von Lieven
@hans.
I thought of that a moment ago. Yet we could add a small trap which is "set on" when the ball is lifted, thus securing it in its position.
On the other hand - when carrige moves up the same trap is released.
@All
Have a similar concepts been tested and debunked. If so - can anyone point me to that? I just think that it so simple principle, taht someone else should have come up with similar design.
Quote from: aiks on September 11, 2007, 02:50:36 AM
@Gravitar: this has to be the most genious concept I have seen over here. Thumbs up!
As a Humburger quotes old lad Albert: everything should be made as simple as possible
A Humburger? :D Make mine a double bacon with cheese! Extra Onions.
I believe Albert and I would agree that this particular device of Gravitar's (and a whole bunch of others we see around here) fall into the "somewhat simpler than possible" category. Could be I'm wrong.
As you can see, I have also adopted a secondary quotation, courtesy of Charles Campbell. I find it to be an excellent final criterion for verifying every claimed overunity device. If you have done it right, it will immediately become invisible and escape into an unseen dimension.
All we're doing here is trying to figure out a shaft or extension cord that can plug in over there and bring energy over here where we can see it, feel it, smell it, taste it and touch it.
Humbugger
@Humbugger,
sorry about that.
G'day all,
There are a lot of people here that would prefer to call him Humburger, it might make him palatable to some :-)
Hans von Lieven
Sorry Hum, couldn't help myself :-)
Hans, I have no beef with that
Sorry...nauseating huh?
Aiks, no problem friend...I take plenty of "stuff" around here. Welcome to Wonderland!
Humb
hey guys I stumbled across this thread a week or so ago.
I has a look at the footage of chas's wheel
I enjoy these type of experiments so i built a computer simulation using 3ds Maxs reator.
I first created a wheel to chas's design with the weight of 2 balls on the out side and and 6 balls on the inside. This number because from what i could see only to ball would ever be on the outside at one time and then six balls would be on the inside wheel.
When i ran the simulation the wheel went no where, it was perfectly balanced just like in srawofni simulation.
So then from what i had seen in the thread i decided to make the outer wheel bigger. I then ran a simulation with 2 balls on the outside and the six balls on the inside and it began to turn up. At first i was like wow that pretty cool but then i realized the this meant it would now take the more balls going down to send 1 ball up. This is because the larger the outer circle the smaller the angle each ball going down will turn the inner wheel. For the wheel to work continuously you would need one ball up for every one ball down.
So the result you will get is either a balanced wheel or a wheel that eventually ends up with no balls at the top.
That is my findings at the moment. If any one would like to input another method for me to investigate please do so.
One thing that make Chas's wheel seem impressive is the fact it starts turning the second he removes his catch thing. However the wheel is not already loading with balls. If it was it the first ball would just roll in and it should be balanced.
I'm sure all this has been said in one form or another by people in this thread but i spent some time playing with it so i thought id post up my findings. If my test method seems incorrect in some way please make a comment. Some of you might think grumble grumble simulation program but it worked very well and if you did your own test in a real world situation you should get the same result.
Thanks for reading and I'm happy to get involved.
@Hum.
I have been following the threads for a while: yet I have been rather lazy to post.
Being person on the business / operations side for innovative concept promotion I highly value your input here. It is not like I don't dream and have high hopes sometimes or anything, but there should always be people who have healthy amount of scepticism.
As a partly related example ? I have a numerous times situations when inventor makes a proposal for potential investors/partners where he concludes that a price for a unit of a product in the final outlet is 10.00 USD and electricity for production and raw materials cost ? 0.50 USD. And they are convinced that a company would make a profit of 9.50 USD on every unit sold.
Quote from: bobbyb on September 11, 2007, 07:27:50 AM
So the result you will get is either a balanced wheel or a wheel that eventually ends up with no balls at the top.
That is my findings at the moment.
Nice post, accurate findings!
Welcome aboard,
Tinu
Quote from: aiks on September 11, 2007, 09:00:41 AM
@Hum.
I have been following the threads for a while: yet I have been rather lazy to post.
Being person on the business / operations side for innovative concept promotion I highly value your input here. It is not like I don't dream and have high hopes sometimes or anything, but there should always be people who have healthy amount of scepticism.
As a partly related example ? I have a numerous times situations when inventor makes a proposal for potential investors/partners where he concludes that a price for a unit of a product in the final outlet is 10.00 USD and electricity for production and raw materials cost ? 0.50 USD. And they are convinced that a company would make a profit of 9.50 USD on every unit sold.
@Aiks
I obviously agree about the need for skeptical commentary, especially in a place like this. I don't quite understand what you are telling me in the second paragraph...maybe they are forgetting labor, packaging, transportation, advertising, distribution and warehousing? Otherwise the math sounds okay to me ;)
My dad was an engineering professor for almost 40 years. In his spare time, he did consulting and testing for investors looking at certain projects. Many of them were "phoney" inventions that did not perform as claimed and were not good investments. He did a lot of testing on items that claimed to save energy and yield better mileage. Mostly mechanical stuff.
As a little boy I can remember going with him on Saturdays sometimes and watching him run tests with big motors and dynamometer loads and extremely precision instruments. Every time, on every device that claimed energy savings or mileage improvement, it came out to be untrue. He revealed a lot of false claims in his day and saved investors many millions of dollars and major frustrations. Maybe that's where I got my skeptical gene. Except nobody is paying me for it as yet!
Humbugger
@Hum - yes that was what I intended to say. btw - sorry if my English is not perfect; I am not a native speaker, and writing these posts a bit in a hurry inbetween my other tasks.
Quote from: aiks on September 11, 2007, 11:00:06 AM
@Hum - yes that was what I intended to say. btw - sorry if my English is not perfect; I am not a native speaker, and writing these posts a bit in a hurry inbetween my other tasks.
Don't worry, Aiks, I understand you just fine and think your english is very good. We have Australians here that can't speak english as well as you do!
Humbugger
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 11, 2007, 03:03:35 AM
G'day all,
Sorry guys, the Gravitar device does not work as it is, unfortunately. Here is why:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fgraveng2.jpg&hash=bfb2cbd5b8143abac10f090b5d5492ed5930ef64)
When the container on the right hits this position it cannot go further down as all the weight now rests on the pin and there is insufficient power on the right to lower it any further and bring the other side back into play.
Pity, it was such an inspired idea. I guess it's back to the drawing board one more time. :-(
Hans von Lieven
Ahh, but that is why the pulley is attached to a flywheel; to give the entire system just enough "oomph" to get it over that hump.
The upward momentum of the lighter carriage, plus the downward momentum of the heavier carriage, AND the inertia of the flywheel, overcome the sudden loss of weight when the balls in the descending carriage impact the ball displacement rod.
G'day all,
Sorry Gravitar, there is not enough energy in the system to store in the flywheel or pendulum.
The moment the balls on the right hit the displacement pin, in order to move the container any further down you need enough force to lift ALL the weights on the left, since the weight of the balls on the right no longer contribute any force.
I don't know how to get around this one.
Hans von Lieven
@ aiks .. here are some similar designs by Jan Rutkowski in Australia - scroll down the page to see the diagrams near the bottom for a better idea - although the inventor claims they work analysis would say different imo.
http://astrosa.8k.com/jan/main2.htm
G'day all,
Thanks for the link fletcher. Once again it fascinates me that these guys NEVER seem to build what they are designing. Most of these gravity wheel designs can be made with simple materials and don't require the skill of a master craftsman, even a Meccano set is enough to prove if these concepts work or not.
Maybe these people are afraid of what they might find out if they actually build the thing. After all, if it doesn't work there is nothing to talk about.
Hans von Lieven
Yes Hans .. it seems that some in the FE world have miraculously & independently arrived at the "First Law of OU" ? that?s where the amount of attention, scrutiny & hard analysis your idea gets is proportional by the square to the share 'boldness' of your claim & inversely proportional to the brevity of evidence you present to back up those claims.
Many of lesser faith might well be swayed into believing that this was an ill conceived ploy by the ?claimee? to solicit unpaid ?help? to work out the crinkles in their idea whilst retaining the bragging rights of said working device.
Of course, I personally, just think they want us to think for ourselves so that we too can get the full compliment of enjoyment & satisfaction from doing the ?hard yards? & exercising those lazy synapses & finally experiencing the epiphany of realization that they were right all a long ? something to tell the grandkids ;)
G'day fletcher and all,
Or you could simply say: "There is a lot of bullshit flying around when it comes to OU", but that would be unkind, so we don't say it. :-)
Hans von Lieven
Dear Ash,
I have updated Campbell.doc to version 1.2. Both of his two inventions have been included in the discussion. See
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48484.html#msg48484
Regards,
Lawrence Tseung
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 09, 2007, 10:38:51 AM
Hi Ash,
if you will be at the 15th again at Chas?s house,
then please try to ask him to put all the ball in each holes
and see, if it starts itsself rotating.
Probably it will not do it.
Maybe he has found an effect where:
E kin= 0.5 x m x v^2 is not equal to E pot= m x g x h
So if a mass converts its stored energy due to its height h
and falls and hits a target,
then maybe it has more energy than E pot = m x g x h
predicts ?
This is probably what user zero has pointed out.
Guys i am finding it hard to keep up with all the posts and Bantar, can some one fill all there request and test info in ONE thread? i have also lost Stefans request for the OHM resistors post can some one find it please?
Lawrence, thank you for the document! will review it now and add it to the script, all tests will be all filmed this weekend.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 27, 2007, 10:36:02 PM
Stefan Exactly, what happens when you put a child on a 'swing' and she swings very high and you only tap her with little energy to keep the momentum going.
But how do you extract the energy from the swing so the 'inertia' stays the same?
Perhaps Chas has to a degree done this.
In the RV resonance 'swing' the peak sine waves 'tap' is the extracted OU, well thats how Daivd Kou keeps his battery charged he cant explain it by any other conventional means,its a little more elaborate with half waves and ful waves AC theory etc, but thats the 'gist' of it. Im not sure if Chas has done the inertia process, your 15 mins test will clear that up.
Ash, it is interesting that you make that point, that very principle is used by at least 3 other inventors to achieve what they (except 1) claim is "OU".
1 man, actually utlizes this force, in what i view to be an OU system, but makes no such claims.
using a pendulum with a double-fulcrum to operate a lever and extract force, wiht no losses to the momentum of the pendulum. I'll try to get his name right : Veljko MilkoviÃ,,‡ i believe
Good Lord Lawrence,
I just read that thing of yours. You sure go to a lot of trouble to talk a lot of rubbish.
Hans von Lieven
Correction Smokey, Milkovic does not only claim OU, he claims Perpetual Motion.
Hans von Lieven
sm0ky2, easy to replicate Claims for the OU reported RV system are posted in the Roto verter thread
Also check gravity powered concpets from panacea's university where Milkcovic's plans are.
We have begun BOTH those replications and will post our results in the appropriate threads.
After over an hour of going through posts i found the request.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47830.html#msg47830
Guys if Stefan agrees some one should starting another Test results/request thread, too much to sort through here. Any test request please state them here and stay on topic i cannot sort through pages upon pages thanks. Who wants the fun job to filter out the Chas R and D ideas from here for the new threads?, count me out of that one.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 12, 2007, 02:14:22 AM
After over an hour of going through posts i found the request.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47830.html#msg47830
Guys if Stefan agrees some one should starting another Test results/request thread, too much to sort through here. Any test request please state them here and stay on topic i cannot sort through pages upon pages thanks. Who wants the fun job to filter out the Chas R and D ideas from here for the new threads?, count me out of that one.
I found Stefan's post for it in under one minute. Just search Stefan's posts. It was quick to home in on the page, then the post itself. As far as "sanitizing" this thread by extracting only the posts you feel are worthy to a new thread, I guess you'd have to do that. If it would be a "
Test results/request thread" as you call it, it would be pretty short.
In terms of actual reported test results, you'd have Stefan's first report of the garbled phone call, then his second report of the clear phone call, then your real long post where the few sparse test results you reported are buried in the middle of a huge dissertation on RV claims. That's a mere three posts and I'll be happy to find them if you like (of course...how would you tell me?).
If you really wanted to add the various "requests", it would get somewhat longer, with quite of few of my posts asking specific questions and you giving your reasons for not making the measurements. There were a number of others who also made requests for specific test information. But all those are kind of empty in terms of testing and reporting results, so I doubt you'd want them in the new thread.
Then there are the suggestions for test methods, both before and after your visit. You pretty much ignored all of the testing suggestions that came before, (when you figured out the machine was way below unity and your engineers took their watthour meters and went home, and after Charles informed you that only pulsed loads would provide the special free energy mode of operation) and since they all involved steady-state testing which is apparently out, you'd probably want to leave those out, too.
So, if your new thread had just the two phone reports from Stefan and your one long post I mentioned and then added the few suggestions you seem open to from yourself and from Stefan (after the visit), which I can readily find for you, you'd have a real sanitized clean little thread.
Humbugger
@Ashtweth @Stefan
I've decided, in the spirit of cooperation and progress, to compile for you here a set of links as discussed above, including only the three posts where actual test results are reported and the posts afterward regarding pulsed-output test suggestions. This will take a while, so I will be editing this post for the next while.
By the way, by far the vast majority of the posts unrelated to test and measurement of Chas Electric machine are totally on-topic regarding Chas gravity wheel. If Chas had not been such a "showman" and purposely presented the two machines as if they were one, these two entirely seperate discussions would have never gotten mingled.
"did you ask Chas, what this red plastic offcenter thing was in the CD video
in his big wheel there ?" ~ Stefan
"it is nothing special, he only had his big wheel going there for show and to distract from his motor flywheel set up." ~ Ashtweth
Actual test reports from Ashtweth, some via Stefan:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg46866.html#msg46866 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg46866.html#msg46866)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47018.html#msg47018 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47018.html#msg47018)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47188.html#msg47188 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47188.html#msg47188)
Suggestions re Pulsed Output Testing
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47361.html#msg47361 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47361.html#msg47361) Ashtweth
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47381.html#msg47381 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47381.html#msg47381) Ashtweth
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47399.html#msg47399 Humbugger
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47469.html#msg47469 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47469.html#msg47469) Wattsup
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47497.html#msg47497 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47497.html#msg47497) Iosh
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47562.html#msg47562 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47562.html#msg47562) Ashtweth
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47563.html#msg47563 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47563.html#msg47563) Ashtweth
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47564.html#msg47564 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47564.html#msg47564) Ashtweth
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47740.html#msg47740 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47740.html#msg47740) Humbugger
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47748.html#msg47748 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47748.html#msg47748) Ashtweth (Pulser Sch)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47755.html#msg47755 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47755.html#msg47755) Humbugger
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47758.html#msg47758 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47758.html#msg47758) Ashtweth
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47760.html#msg47760 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47760.html#msg47760) Stefan
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47765.html#msg47765 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47765.html#msg47765) Ashtweth
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47830.html#msg47830 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47830.html#msg47830) Stefan
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47940.html#msg47940 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg47940.html#msg47940) Markdansie
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48212.html#msg48212 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48212.html#msg48212) Ashtweth (Pulse Sch)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48340.html#msg48340 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48340.html#msg48340) Hans (Diagram Post)
That is all. There is not much really there in terms of an actual test plan except your own posts and a couple of good words from Stefan about loads and keeping accurate track of duty cycle.
The pulsed load method offers all kinds of opportunity to get bad measurements involving peak momentary output power. I'll reserve further comment until I see what kind of testing you actually do.
I have enjoyed reviewing the thread and acting as your secretary.
Humbugger
???
A Watthour meter measures with power factor...
Pulsed loads or input would be very accurately read...
I'm still saying a wattmeter would simplify and be
more accurate regardless of load characteristics.
Over complication will lead to confusion and errors.
~Dingus
Dingus Mungus
Watt hour meters will be used as well
I agree with request for watt meters, Also the test has to run over a period of time to eliminate the actions of flywheels storing energy comming into play.
I am still perplexed why I am not allowed to attend on behalf of the NEC which has a great reputation in these areas.
I have to fly out of Australia in a couple of weeks working on other technologies, but am available up until then.
Mark
Hi Mark,
You would be more then welcome to attend, we are getting help by others who have watt hour meters for the board. So no need ATM to come and see what can be done any ways, these are trade professional Watt hour meters and can tell you every thing you need to know.
So far AS IS all signs have pointed to it being a mechanical flywheel storage system, However we are going to do some pulse tests based on Lawrence's advice and others.
Even after every one closes the book on his set up we are still going to do ALT extraction stuff and pulsed duty cycle tests. So at least the board has an R and D tool to play with. If more then interesting results are observed you are more then welcome upon approval from Chas to come in and check for magic hamsters or poor measuring technique.
Have a safe trip mate.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 12, 2007, 10:42:47 PM
So far AS IS all signs have pointed to it being a mechanical flywheel storage system, However we are going to do some pulse tests based on Lawrence's advice and others.
Dear Ash,
I shall repeat my latest recommendation for your coming trip here.
(1) The schematic diagram (Thanks to Hans von Lieven and Patrick Kelly from Panacea) with actual dimensions
is excellent and appears easy. We plan to replicate it in China.
(2) We should be able to get same or similar A.C. motors and alternators in China. Some
tuning may be needed.
(3) Gradually increase the load. Accept that we might have to
vary the tension of the belts on different loads. Turning on ten 100 watt bulbs is better than turning on one 1,000 watt bulb.
Please keep the rotational speed as high as you can.(4) If we perfected the
auto-adjustment mechanism in (3), I believe we essentially have the Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier in wheel form.
(5) The Tsing Hua University Electricity Magnifier is NOT only an energy storage system.
It is also an energy Lead Out system.Best of Everything in your coming meeting.
Lawrence
Hi Lawrence,
Personally i would like to thank you and so does the trustees and volunteers at Panacea for your ideas and enthusiasm /support. Patrick Kelly has added your thesis to our on line university, also your page and Chas has been updated with your document. The new site is being uploaded now.
We will be presenting a Full video production of all gravity devices which are currently reported working, Bob mays, Milkovics, and presenting your Gen and thesis with the experimental data we attain at Chas's test.
We will also be getting faculties and government to go on record stating they have evaluated this research.
We will also be presenting this along with our water fuel cell and neon switcher to the public in order to attain support for all open sourced engineers and work towards getting a RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER.
Check got it Lawrence, will do those tests for you.
The video will take time to edit, how ever we will be posting the pulse RV tests parts here exclusive for Stefan, so you guys don't have to wait ;) wish us luck Guys, plenty more to come.
@ Hans
i have never heared Milkovic claim perpetual motion from any of his devices. He claims USABLE energy from the LEVERAGE. i have however seen MANY OTHER PEOPLE who see his device, claim that it is OU, when it is not.
There is nothing OU about the Milkovic device.
It usilizes the well known forces of a pendulum to activate a leverage, incidently at the exact moment when the force is at its maximum. (bottom dead center)
this force can be calculated for any pendulum, and with the known distance of the lever you can calculate not only the ammount of applied force on the other end of the lever, but also the exact number of swings the pendulum will endure before comming to a complete stop. (if not pushed again)
Also to be noted is the there is a range at which the ratio of the lever, andthe mass on either ends (mass of pendulum and mass of "hammer" or weight applied to the opposite end of the lever).
if the mass on the hammer end is too small the pendulum end will always be in the down position, if it is too great for the mass of the pendulum + downward vertical force-pulses to counter, then the pendulum side will always stay in the up position. - If you calculate various mass/lever combinations within this range you will find that the energy exerted on the hammer end (added up for each pendulum swing) is exactly equal to the force input to make the pendulum start swinging.
Furthermore: If you count the number of swings of the pendulum between pulses (or kicks) needed to keep it moving, and divide the energy of each pulse by this number it will be equal to the energy output on the hammer end. (we are talking energy not force).
The laws of physics still apply when it comes to the Milkovic water pump.
If anyone has a descrepancy they would like to adress here i a more than willing to hear you out.
I am not a critic of perpetual motion devices, but i have spent a good majority of my life in seek of one.
The Milkovic device is not it.
@ Gravitar
Your design for the multiple-wheel device, concerning the ratios of the wheels::
the ratio of the wheels are not going to spin at the same rate at any ratio. the problem here is that for them to gear off each other either from the inside diameter or the outside diameter, the same degree of each wheel must pass each other at the same rate. if they are not the same size this causes a problem with surface distances, thus the spin rate will always be different.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 12, 2007, 10:42:47 PM
Hi Mark,
You would be more then welcome to attend, we are getting help by others who have watt hour meters for the board. So no need ATM to come and see what can be done any ways, these are trade professional Watt hour meters and can tell you every thing you need to know.
So far AS IS all signs have pointed to it being a mechanical flywheel storage system, However we are going to do some pulse tests based on Lawrence's advice and others.
Even after every one closes the book on his set up we are still going to do ALT extraction stuff and pulsed duty cycle tests. So at least the board has an R and D tool to play with. If more then interesting results are observed you are more then welcome upon approval from Chas to come in and check for magic hamsters or poor measuring technique.
Have a safe trip mate.
@Mark
Nice invitation huh? You're welcome to come; no need to come we don't need you; you can't come until after we get Charles' approval; you can come some other time after we demonstrate remarkable findings...have a nice trip (i.e. we won't be seeing you any time soon). I think maybe he remembers that you once said Humbugger had some valid suggestions.
Maybe you or someone could ask Ashtweth what kind of wattmeters they are for us. Trade professional is not a brand or model I'm familiar with. It would be good for the members here to have some specifics on the manufacturer and model number to investigate the specs.
Anyway, Mark, you get an A+ in my book FWIW for trying to help and for trying to be there as a credible witness for the NEC, an outfit that has earned respect for doing some real science and for staying out of the "claim first, pass the hat, get the donations and test later" crowd.
Don't feel bad, I wasn't invited either.
Humbugger
Guys Chas's page and all related pages based on our findings SO FAR has been updated.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ChasCampbell.htm
Panacea has since investigated and found that Chas's current designs are still at a research and development stage and not able to produce free power until further testing and improvements are done.Panacea does find that Chas's ideas have potential and are worthy of grant support
We will continue to add the Video production after this weekend. Also Lawrence, your info related to the Chas system has been added to his page and yours please check R and D principles.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/WangShumHo.htm
This should also silence the old fart above me. ;)
>Again, I have heard/seen of nothing documented here that works. If there is something that does, please post a link for me as I missed it. Also, all that I HAVE built has not worked (I promise, I am not running my house here for free, if I was I would probably not be reading here).
FE reported to me as working- which you must build yourself to test to confirm
One engineers report- David Kou ( RV neon)
Two engineers Lawton and Ravi i know reported-
Working Water fuel cell.
Your RV can also improve the efficiency.
regards
ashtweth
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 13, 2007, 08:42:15 PM
Guys Chas's page and all related pages based on our findings SO FAR has been updated.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ChasCampbell.htm
We will continue to add the Video production after this weekend. Also Lawrence, your info related to the Chas system has been added to his page and yours please check R and D principles.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/WangShumHo.htm
This should also silence the old fart above me. ;)
Your ideas of what will "silence" me are very strange. The way to keep me from commenting is to stop being such a little tyrant and slow down with the exaggerated, misleading and untrue statements you are becoming famous for.
Personally,
[and only because you publicly speculated about what my reaction would be do I offer my opinion here] I found your newly-edited BOCAF pages to be poorly written, rambling, babbling and full of grammatical, factual and spelling errors as well as exaggerations, all quite as usual. Not to mention a lack of technical substance.
It is nice to see that you finally pulled some of the premature claims of free energy produced by Charles' machine. On the Wang entries, I think you'd better check with Lawrence again for accuracy. I believe there are serious discrepancies between what your page states and what Lawrence states regarding Lawrence and Wang's present business/promotional relationship.
It's also interesting to me that you miss no opportunity to hurl vulgar names and insults in my direction. Nice to know I'm in your thoughts. Good luck on your visit with Charles and drive safely.
Humbugger
To Clarify for Board.
The Panacea Chas page is quiet concise and objective.
It provides an avenue for those who wish to make their disclosure open sourced to progress, warns against possible interference, provides an education on the political and economic conditions present and also shows the importance of altruism via Chas's intent. That is that this altruism is justified to put this into the curriculum's and show how altruistic gestures of this nature have improved society.
Plus also offers a service to test and use his device for an R and D tool, as we are on Saturday.
I find this arm chair skeptic old fart who builds nothing and tries to justify OU by his understanding of conventional theory [thats comical for me too], who has only ever pointed out that We published Chas's claims made on Channel 10 (being the only mistake-which still needed investigation,) to be time wasting and suspicious, inadvertently working for the oil companies or just a plain attitude problem, (both really).
Part if his attitude is criticism, when asked to build David Kous reported self running RV neon circuit and PROVE IT DOESENT WORK, he shut up, i mean whats a disabled man going to do ? (harsh yes i feel his attitude needs this to smarten him up)
Whats he gonna do, sit there be a skeptical criticize when he can, good luck tiring to end the energy subjugation like that and to all his reporters.
Not only this regarding published information on certain tests and information he had skipped and made a habit of making me post to point this out in many instances. This has pissed me off more then ever as my time has been wasted.
With this in mind, any more related posts by him will be ass holed by me, and of cause any of his requests.
Quote from: mramos on September 13, 2007, 09:40:54 PM
Well, I did not get the caps I needed to do my RV test again this weekend. The RV experts/Ash gave me a new valuse to test, but I had to work and make a living and did not have time. But I will :)
And I really do wish you guys luck on the tests.
Let me be the first to tell all when it works, I have no clue, it works, I have one. Please let me.
Before you judge people here think about the above. Who here would not want free energy? You think that includes Humbugger? ME? All reading this? Stefan? You think Stefan does this for fun?
Again, I have heard/seen of nothing documented here that works. If there is something that does, please post a link for me as I missed it. Also, all that I HAVE built has not worked (I promise, I am not running my house here for free, if I was I would probably not be reading here).
Anyway, I still am with Humbugger on this as well.
And I did not know he was an an old fart? Missed that post too I guess.
Hi mramos!
I'm only 57. About the "neon" thingy...if your object is to charge batteries using a 90 pound dynamotor setup, I can steer you to a better way. What Ashtweth, his engineers and The Compilations seem to leave out every time is any indication of what "successful replication" actually means. I've read and read the materials Ashtweth has recommended. I've studied at the panacea university. I have yet to find any information that indicates what to expect in terms of charging batteries with the "neon" thingy.
There have been repeated implications and claims in parenthesis of (self-running) of the RV using the "neon" circuit to charge and then swap batteries. This appears in the videos, in The Compilations and in many of Ashtweth's posts.
Nowhere, however, do I see any information about the actual charge rate of any specific battery used with the "neon" circuit. For a circuit whose purpose it is to charge batteries, you might think that information would be included so you could tell if you had successfully replicated. The (self-running) claim is repeated over and over and over again, yet we have no data and no demonstration.
I for one will not attempt a replication if there is no indication of what kind of performance to expect when I succeed. I have suggested to Ashtweth many times that he give some actual data about the charging rate of the battery when using a properly built and adjusted "neon" circuit and specifically whether or not it is anywhere near the rate of discharge of the battery running the RV.
He never answers; instead claiming that all the information is right there and that I'll have to lay out for the whole setup and build it first to find out for myself. So it goes with Ashtweth and panacea bocaf. It isn't very conducive to trust or credibility, especially when repeated legitimate straightforward requests for very germaine and simple information are refused and answered with hostile, vicious attacks and personal insults.
Good luck on your RV. For certain types of fixed-load applications well below the nameplate HP rating, it is probably true that the RV can be tuned up to save some juice. Self-running RV is a pipe dream.
Humbugger
mramos, if you wish for this information i can provide it for you. Enough information is already provided in the compilations. I am also in contact with the engineer. Also our tests of his circuit will be conducted this weekend before Chas.
mramos ill direct you to this comment
>Self-running RV is a pipe dream.
Skeptic attitudes like this will never build and improve the circuit and or verify it, if you feel this old suspicious fart can give you OU this way then perhaps you like him are better off to leave the RV alone and it is not for you.
If you wish to replicate David Kou's circuit, know that you have replicated it when your secondary battery charges and you have no reflection on the prime movers load battery.
Every RV's performance is different, and its figures will reflect this, one figure will not show the same , as each RV motor is different, and will give you different efficiencies.
This is in the compilations, [again] So we can only say if your secondary battery charges then you have it, Davids RV based on his bearings friction will show different figures, but the principle will be the same.
Gee have i showed you how useless the arm chair skepticism is yet? i don't really care nore do i want PM's about this guy, just ignore the old fart and ask me directly in future.
Quote from: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 13, 2007, 11:41:24 PM
mramos, if you wish for this information i can provide it for you. Enough information is already provided in the compilations. I am also in contact with the engineer. Also our tests of his circuit will be conducted this weekend before Chas.
Skeptic attitudes like this will never build and improve the circuit and or verify it, if you feel this old suspicious fart can give you OU this way then perhaps you like him are better off to leave the RV alone and it is not for you.
I do not understand why Ashtweth cannot simply post this highly important and simple information for all to see, after having made so many public claims.
Is there any reasonable evidence and, if so, what, to support the idea that the neon circuit will charge a battery more rapidly than the RV discharges an equivalent battery for its driving energy? That is the question. I think the answer is no. Ashtweth says the answer is yes but will not give any basis for his hope, belief, delusion, conclusion...whatever it is.
I'm asking him to put up or stop making false claims and luring people into spending money, time and emotional investment based on his personal unfounded hopes which he presents as if they were accomplished deeds to be replicated. He answers by throwing hissy fits and cursing me and insulting me viciously. Well, folks, I said it before: Ashtweth, you are hoisting yourself by your own petard.
As far as me personally building anything at the moment, that's not practical. I have a well-equipped lab that is in storage at the moment due to the fact that I am ill and physically disabled for the medium term which may possibly turn out to be the long or even the total term for me. I have been building things of my own design and replicating others' designs for 40 years and I miss it rather dearly.
Humbugger
"Hoisted by his own petard" ~ In older days, when kings and fortified castles and walled cities were the fashion, a soldier was sometimes required to ascend great walls under often vicious attack. A petard was a very early device similar to a crude hand grenade containing a powder charge and some shrapnel. One is said to be "hoisted by his own petard" if his own weapon flings him into the air and turns him into a battle casualty, worst of all if it flings him, now unarmed and badly wounded, over the wall and into the waiting hands of the castle's defenders.
It's commonly used to refer to a person in an argument who destroys his own position or strategy through being overly aggressive or hypocritical and contradicting or confounding himself and making it obvious to all that his position in the argument is untenable.
@ Board
Id be skeptical about that, funny part is you think I'm joking.
Nothing needed to be stated by me.
@ Stefan
>Ashtweth says the answer is yes but will not give any basis for his hope, belief, delusion, conclusion...whatever it is.
We have published the source of the information, every thing that was reported to us, how it was reported, ALL instructions and have many times already pointed this out to this user name. I am highly suspicious of this person as you know, and his attitude.
I would not encourage replies to him about this circuit,(just my opinion) as he already has been provided with all the information he requires to test the circuit and is still trying to steer others from trying it, also seems to be asking for sympathy now having wasted my time.
--------------------------------------------
Words that do not match deeds are unimportant. - Ernesto Che Guevara
;)
I have asked one very simple and very important question to which no answer is provided in any of the literature referenced. I am in need of no sympathy.
Is there any reasonable evidence and, if so, what, to support the idea that the neon circuit will charge a battery more rapidly than the RV discharges an equivalent battery for its driving energy? That is the question.
I am betting that, when push comes to shove, that it's not even close to charging the secondary battery fast enough to do a swapped self-runner. Not by any stretch. The claim seems to be that the neon circuit will shove lots of charge into an auxilliary battery with no increase in the drain on the driving battery.
23A or 26A is what the last video I watched showed as a running DC current at 11.8V on the input motor battery. To do self-running, the neon circuit would need to charge the aux battery at the same or higher rate, would it not?
By inspection only, as a design engineer, I can see from the circuit diagram and component values alone, without building anything, that the neon circuit as published will never provide self-running levels of extraction and auxilliary battery charging.
Ashtweth, you are avoiding the hard facts as if they were bitter poison and now running crying to Stefan whining like a spoiled child. You may be the teacher's pet, but your tactics tonight have shown everyone here just what you are all about.
Humbugger
This is another example why not to ask/answer this user name concerning the RV, and how suspicious and counter productive his posts have become. Plus off topic.
All available informations are provided in the published compilations and this has been pointed out to this user name already in many posts.
Also i have merely advised [as it states in my above post] how to address this user name to Stefan based on my opinion concerning his experience with the RV and on this circuit. His understanding [and experience] of how the RV works and based upon his attitude and time wasting methodology. [this is for his benefit if any]
Its too easy for me to insult a suspicious and or oil man, an alleged disabled man looking for sympathy with no lab, and or to be aggressive to an old man who would have trouble lifting half the weights i could, and who has an attitude which is obvious to me and some others as useless.
But i will say this based on those who like to lol, follow his OU advice that sim programs can show OU, and to not to build any thing and rely on skepticism with out finding out for your self.
No simulation program can show ZPE, radiant energy , or any of the principles which the engineers who have worked with the RV have tested and reported. The lab is the best education, especially when concerning the RV ;).
So how ever useful you find This user names design engineering (which cannot explain OU), don't expect it to show what the RV engineers have reported in the lab. Their instructions and how to are posted in the comps.
Lab tests are needed by those we trust, not skepticism- Ashtweth
.
PS Words that do not match deeds are unimportant. - Ernesto Che Guevara
This was quiet fun to point out that concerning the RV, a man with out a lab is truly a disabled one.
Plus to improve attitudes and not to rely on skepticism alone .
PS, Guys, we are off for the tests, i wont have internet till Monday so please be patient.
Ill get the separate pulsed watt hour meter results posted HERE on sat and Sunday so you guys don't have to wait for our production/presentation ;)
Ill show the video of all the requests and Stefans Ball request too on SAT night/sun day morning, our production is coming later and will how the concept of the other [gravity] devices and a few other things so plenty to come. My friend will post this info as i wont have internet till Monday.
Have a good night guys.
G'day all,
Quote:
Words that do not match deeds are unimportant. - Ernesto Che Guevara
End of Quote, Beginning of comment :-)
Anyone that believes this has never read Plato, Anaximander, Aristoteles, Socrates and a whole heap of other philosophers that did not exactly match their words with their deeds in everyday life.
According to that idiot terrorist Che Guevera they were unimportant.
For my money I know who made a better and more lasting impression on the world.
Hans von Lieven
Gravity Wheel::
concerning the leverage necessary to keep the wheel in motion, if you have 3 balls going down on one side and 3 going up (this must occur simultaneously) and the distances from the center of rotation were 2:1 respectively
you would essentially have 6 units of force fighting 3 units of force (+ friction). Upon a 2-day examination of the various wheel diagrams and things that have been pointed out in this discussion - i see no reason this wheel would not work.
Things to consider - the slope of the horizontal ramps will determine the RPM of the wheel.
i.e. - the time it takes for a single ball to travel from one side to the other down the sloped plane.
This can be countered by adding "extra" balls into the system, so that theres always a ball ready to drop into the respective bucket.
My calculations were done using the interior diameter of the outer wheel and the exterior of the inner wheel as locations of the buckets. as long as 1.5 balls is heavy enough to counter the forces trying to stop the wheels motion (friction, imbalance, ect) then the wheel will turn.
G'day all...
If My mechanical drawings do not match the physical model, or the technical data on the drawings is wrong....then all I can see is a bird drinking the water...like Homer Simpson... ;D
Maybe it's all an illusion.
I like neons....here is one of mine.....
Scotty.
I have had enough now of Humbugger and his rants over here at the forum.
I have set him now to read only.
Was there any topic lately where he tried not to put his skeptic fingers on
and make fun of and harras the inventors ?
@Stefan: Indeed, spend him a break!
As i have seen, some other sceptics like Humbugger came along here. But they do not write the same discouraging stuff all the time. Its enough to answer once or twice with same arguments.
@Humbugger, come back, when there is something ready AND proofed by a group. Then i would like to see you convinced.
@Astweth, please cool down! Its not nice or fair, to point on Hum's physically Disability. This has nothing to do with his extrem annoying sceptics and his desire for admiration.
@ Ash and Hum
I think you guys should put your personal differences aside, all this petty squabbling truly takes away from why we are al here. Both of you have contributed greatly on these forums and i would hate to lose either of your great minds over something as petty as whats been going on in this thread...
Let's try to keep the focus here, and at least for now - try to overlooks one another's social-shortcommings.
Thanks,
Sm0ky
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 13, 2007, 05:43:02 PM
@ Hans
i have never heared Milkovic claim perpetual motion from any of his devices. He claims USABLE energy from the LEVERAGE. i have however seen MANY OTHER PEOPLE who see his device, claim that it is OU, when it is not.
There is nothing OU about the Milkovic device.
.
Hi Smokey,
Have you ever built and tested a Milkovic machine?
While I will agree with your assessment regarding the distribution of energy, it only applies to a non resonant machine. A non resonant machine and a resonant machine are two completely different mechanisms.
A non resonant unit is a slug. It looks like it is operating correctly, but no particular power is apparent at the end of the lever. Most people stop here and call it a day.
Milkovic calls his machine an oscillator for a very good reason. Significant power is generated in the lever once the right combination of weights, springs and dimensions is found. It's not that hard, but it takes a while to get it tuned.
I built one to see if what he says is true, and I'm satisfied that he is right. I didn't perform any sophisticated measurements because it was obvious to me that what Milkovic claimed really worked.
BTW, I've built many prototypes of machines that failed miserably. This was one of the few exceptions.
Ted
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 08, 2007, 04:14:10 PM
G'day all,
Patrick Kelly from Panacea has just send me the following diagram, which is his take on the Chas Campbell system.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fchascampbell.bmp&hash=1f289a7d9d65f0b3599cfbf2be66727c893f3a50)
Forwarded without comment at this stage
Hans von Lieven
so.. what was the consensus on this diagram?
G'day all,
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 13, 2007, 05:43:02 PM
@ Hans
i have never heared Milkovic claim perpetual motion from any of his devices. He claims USABLE energy from the LEVERAGE. i have however seen MANY OTHER PEOPLE who see his device, claim that it is OU, when it is not.
There is nothing OU about the Milkovic device..
Sorry Smokey, not quite right what you are saying. In 2001 Milcovic published a book called Perpetuum Mobile in which he shows ten such devices, nine of them invented by him and one by someone else. In that book he does claim to have invented perpetual motion with his devices based on secondary oscillations. Unfortunately the book is only available in Serbian.
If you want to order a copy, here is the URL of the order form
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/KnjigeEng.html#perpetum
Hans von Lieven
stephan .. I am disappointed you have banned humbugger - every argument requires balance & for the most part he was the voice of reason compared to ash's apparent lack of impartiality, imo.
I remind you that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - if ash/epi is going to go in to bat so vocally for every FE crusader with a claim then he needs to take note of & incorporate the sceptics concerns about good & reliable/dependable testing technique - otherwise this becomes a farcical game of claim - argument & confusion.
Don't get me wrong - I am just as interested in the next guy here in finding/seeing the real deal - I just don't like being taken on little magical mystery tours every time.
yes sorry, but what happened to freedom of speech?
G'day Stefan and all,
I feel I have to jump to the defense of Humbugger here too. We all know that he can be abrasive at times and perhaps he should tone that down a bit. Having said that, I feel that he contributes a lot to the debate, he is evidently a well trained engineer who has a lot of knowledge to share.
It would be a pity to deprive this forum of his expertise for no other reason than his tendency to get into shit fights. Socrates was a very cranky and abrasive fellow too and we all know what happened to him. I would hate to have history repeat itself here.
Hans von Lieven
i was trying to tune up the mass email of Chas's to see if it would make more sense. does it make more sense now? (ive only added punctuation and dashes. By the way, what about the end of the gravity wheel billiard ball demo? i think it starts at 32:31..
"First build a flywheel that will produce at least twice as much energy as you need to drive your alternator.
When finished you should have trouble seeing it moving as it runs in its own space,
After a few trial runs i built one by having a h-t steel shaft keeyed each end before a flange or a disc was slipped along to the center and welded.
The flange was then drilled and tapped to take studs, using a router i cut a circle 600mm in diameter out of custom board with a hole in the center to take the shaft. This was attached to the flange using studs with washers and lock nuts. The second circle had a hole in the center large enough to fit over the flange.
This was fitted from the other end and screwed to the first wheel.
By doing this i could try different speeds and drives until i was satisfied i had a combination that would work with what i had - which was a .075 hp single phase electric motor and a 3.5kva alternator.
The flywheel ended up being 72mm thick and 590mm in diameter. I then fitted a steel band around my wheel. This added more power - my theory being - if you create centrifugal force you can drive anything - as long as the wheel keeps spinning.
I ended up with an alternator fitted with a 4.5inch pulley, driven by a 9inch pulley. The alternator speed was 3146rpm at that speed it was easy to run electrical appliances for a period.
Now to the most important part.
To keep the wheel spinning i wanted to build a power grid which had a single power supply to a switch that worked on a rotating system.
To this i would have 6 identical electric motors connected - they would all drive to a common shaft in the center - imagine a clock with your motors situated at 1-3-5-7-9-11, The switch would direct power to one motor at a time with a overlap that provided power to the second, before the first was switched off.
This means one motor is working while the others are cooling down - on this drive shaft i would have a smaller flywheel - to compensate the power required to drive 6 sets of belts - as the motors are like the alternator - they require very little power to spin.
Drive this shaft at approx half the speed of your motors - from this shaft double your speed to your main flywheel then using pulleys as large as possible drive your alternator.
All you need then is a simple device that prevents your alternator (from) producing more power then your system is capable of maintaining."
Quote from: fletcher on September 14, 2007, 04:47:22 PM
stephan .. I am disappointed you have banned humbugger - every argument requires balance
Yes, he did not have the required "balance".
Also he was only here to criticize , but he never did any own experiments
or tests..
G'day Stefan,
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 14, 2007, 05:38:36 PM
Also he was only here to criticize , but he never did any own experiments
or tests..
A bit difficult if you are bedridden most of the time. Besides, often his criticism was well founded.
Hans von Lieven
There is a difference between a CONSTRUCTIVE critique, and
downright DESTRUCTIVE, NEGATIVE and ABUSIVE bashings.
Many like Humbugger are comparable to a guy who stalks the
malls looking for a handicapped person - so that he can make
fun of them mercilessly.
A lack of soul, and only a dark cloud of negativity... and that
attitude is not only unhealthy for them, but for all others
who are actually TRYING to make new discoveries and
a big difference.
Quote from: Eddy Currentz on September 14, 2007, 01:58:29 PM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 13, 2007, 05:43:02 PM
@ Hans
i have never heared Milkovic claim perpetual motion from any of his devices. He claims USABLE energy from the LEVERAGE. i have however seen MANY OTHER PEOPLE who see his device, claim that it is OU, when it is not.
There is nothing OU about the Milkovic device.
.
Hi Smokey,
Have you ever built and tested a Milkovic machine?
While I will agree with your assessment regarding the distribution of energy, it only applies to a non resonant machine. A non resonant machine and a resonant machine are two completely different mechanisms.
A non resonant unit is a slug. It looks like it is operating correctly, but no particular power is apparent at the end of the lever. Most people stop here and call it a day.
Milkovic calls his machine an oscillator for a very good reason. Significant power is generated in the lever once the right combination of weights, springs and dimensions is found. It's not that hard, but it takes a while to get it tuned.
I built one to see if what he says is true, and I'm satisfied that he is right. I didn't perform any sophisticated measurements because it was obvious to me that what Milkovic claimed really worked.
BTW, I've built many prototypes of machines that failed miserably. This was one of the few exceptions.
Ted
I have constucted this machine in several forms the most simplistic are nothing more than a pendulum, a double fulcrum, and a lever. This is where the majority of my energy calculations are taken from, using several different masses and pendulum-masses, shaft lengths,lever lengths. It has been constant and exact in every case that i have tried. Granted i have not attempted ot construct every possible size variation, as such would be impossible and more time-consuming than one person could endure.
I spent a lot of time on this particular design because of he way it was originally presented to me. It does appear to have a lot more force on the other end of the lever - BUT, this is FORCE not energy. Its the same thing archemedes did thousands of years earlier.
There are two technologies involved here: 1) Pendulums and 2) levers - both of which have been improved upon, calculated, observed, and studied for nearly 3,000 +/- years at the very least.
There are two of the only technologies that we have nearly perfected. The operation under a wide range of conditions and configurations is well known. If there IS any "exact science", the area of pendulums and levers would be included in it,
With recent improvements of aerodynamic pendulums and magnetic-bearings we can reduce friction to close to 0.
Causing them to function in the range of ideal functionality. (no losses)
i have created a rotary engine based on his principles which runs very good, but is not overunity.
basically i have placed a crank+wheel in place of his water pump mechanism. This configuration undergoes signifigant losses, but achieves rotary motion rather simply, which makes it very usefull for toying with spinning magnetic decives :) just swing the pendulum and it will go for a good time.
So far i have constructed 36 pendulum-levers and have performed extensive testing only to prove myself wrong in the end.
As far as "resonant" i am a bit confused on what you mean here. (almost) all pendulums become resonant when they are free-swinging. If by resonance, you mean applying a pushing-force to the pendulum at precise moments in its cycle, then yes i have done this with my 3 that operate using clockwork+weights mounted in a case and handing from the lever, pendulum swinging below that.
If on the other hand you are refering to the resonant frequency of the lever itself, i started to tackle that as well, however - in order to have a reasonably short lever, you would need a pendulum that weighed in excess of 2kg, on an arm 1 meter or less, which quite simply was not pheasable so i abandoned that idea.
Do not confuse Energy with Force (from leverage). To properly test this device use the known energy value calculated from the pendulum mass and the length of the arm (and subsequent time it takes to swing from 90-degrees to downward vertical) - then measure the energy output by lifting a known mass a known distance over an ammount of time on the other end of the lever. Under ideal conditions the two energy values would be = in all of my replications. Realistically there is more energy required into setting the pendulum into motion, and in keeping it in motion by periodic "kicking", than is retrieved by adding up the energy values of each up+down motion of the lever in the devices that i have created.
Furthermore: i have found that in my clockwork designs where the "kicking" is precisely timed, and not subject to manual-error - that the energy scales down on the lever output, just as it does on the pendulum-input after the pendulum reaches its normal swing speed.
If there is a magic combination of pendulum-mass / Arm length / Lever length / Fulcrum location that produces results inconsistent to this when measuring the Energy involved, i would love to know the ratios so that i can repruduce those results.
What i am seeing, as what is confirmed true with the actual water Pumps that are being commercially produced with his technology, is that this system is a Force Amplifier. it utilizes leverage in the most efficient manner that (i believe) mankind has ever achieved. This is almost pure power conversion. I am very impressed by his machines and the sheer ingenuity it must have taken to come up with this. But , as yet, i have not seen any actual output energy that is not accounted for by the energy imposed upon the swinging pendulum. - measure Energy not force. if you want to compare Force to Force, then measure the "hammer" force, then measure for force by putting a plate at the bottom of the pendulum's swing and measure the impact force - then you have apples and apples.
I oppoligize for being incorrect about Milkovic "not" claiming PM. I had only seen at that time a few older video tapes of him playing with his tripple-beam scale, and his devices which he designed for industrial water pumps. as well as a few demonstration videos of smaller water pumps (im guesing for rural use). I stand corrected on this issue, as i have now watched 2 videos of him making such claims.
sorry for rambling on, but i dont think i could have said what i needed to say with less.
Only the skeptics armchair negatory comity want him back... or,
one of his 15 other fake supporters accounts that are begging for himself
to get back as his main account.
I challenge the Humbugger bashers to find a single post where Humbugger was wrong. Is there only room on this forum for the preacher and his choir?
G'day Smokey,
You are correct in what you are saying, if you want to take it a bit further have a look at George Constantinesco's work in the 1920's. It has all relevant stuff of Milkovic's right there in his patents and real world applications.
It would seem that the Serbian Patent office do not check foreign precedents. Milkovic's patents are not worth the paper they are written on.
But we really should not be discussing Milkovic in this thread. Sorry Stefan.
Hans von Lieven
Here is THE SOLUTION to the puzzle How Can This Be True?
The upper line of each triangle appears to be straight (an optical illusion) when in fact, they are very slightly curved.
The line in the upper triangle sags very slightly reducing the area of the total triangle.
The line in the lower triangle balloons upward very slightly, expanding the area of the total triangle.
This forced difference in area between the two total triangles adds up to exactly one square.
Cheers,
DerrickA
P.S. The solution to many apparent paradoxes like this puzzle, mobius strips, klein bottles, Escher drawings, etc. lie in subtle dimensional shifts not easily noticable to the casual observer. This fact can be used both for and against the case of free energy.
Gravity Wheel:
The ratio of the Outer diameter of the Inner wheel (where the ball falls into the upward scoop)
should be at 1:2 to the Inner diameter of the Outer wheel (where the balls descend).
The number of balls is not very important, so long as they are spaced radially-symmetrical, so that the same number of balls fall, as are rising.
Important to note is the Mass of the balls. The cummulative mass of 1/2 the number of Descending balls that import gravitational force on the wheel at any moment in time must be sufficient to move the mass of the wheel with no other balls on it.
This is also the ammount of mass that we may pull our excess energy from. (theoretically).
example: 3 descending balls, with a 2 to 1 leverage and 3 ascending balls.
The 3 descending balls impart 6 units of force onto the wheel, 3 (3.00001) units of force are used to lift the 3 ascending balls, leaving us with 3 units of force. If our whel is designed such that it requires 3 units of force to turn it, then we will have a net energy value of 0 and our friend friction will bring it to a stop.
IF 3 units of force are MORE than is required to move the wheel (less wheel mass? better bearings? no load?)
Then we will have an excess of force imparted on the wheel. - Think this over and let me know what you think.
as i mentioned earlier, the angle of the horizontal planes determines the RPM (multiple balls in the "waiting" position can counter this effect), and you want the Drop Point on the ascending side to be as high as you can, Top Dead Center would be ideal, but this may cause a problem in the extra momentum consumed in bringing the balls around that much further. On the same note you want your recieving point on the descending side to be as high as possible. so you have a small range of angles to play with, and moving the horizontal ramps vertically until you find the right position, TIMING is very important, one ball MUST drop into the recieving bucket on the descending side at the SAME TIME as a ball is picked up on the recieving bucket of the ascending side.
ALSO one a ball MUST be dropped off at the drop point on the descending side as the SAME TIME as the ball is being dropped off at the top of the ascending side. Ideally you would have all 4 balls going onto/off of the ramps at the same time, to reduce wheel instability.
if i can figure out how to post a picture on this thing i can illustrate this, but its basically the design that was posted several times earlier. If the mass of the wheel is considerably less than the mass of 1/2 the number of working balls there will be excess energy - in theory.
one idea for consistent functionality would be to put two plates of plexi on the outsides of the tracks so the balls dont fall oof, but also you can then slope the buckets, and make holes in the plexi at your "drop points" such that the balls would roll off the buckets onto the inclined plane with ease.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 14, 2007, 11:09:05 PM
Gravity Wheel:
The ratio of the Outer diameter of the Inner wheel (where the ball falls into the upward scoop)
should be at 1:2 to the Inner diameter of the Outer wheel (where the balls descend).
The number of balls is not very important, so long as they are spaced radially-symmetrical, so that the same number of balls fall, as are rising.
Important to note is the Mass of the balls. The cummulative mass of 1/2 the number of Descending balls that import gravitational force on the wheel at any moment in time must be sufficient to move the mass of the wheel with no other balls on it.
This is also the ammount of mass that we may pull our excess energy from. (theoretically).
example: 3 descending balls, with a 2 to 1 leverage and 3 ascending balls.
The 3 descending balls impart 6 units of force onto the wheel, 3 (3.00001) units of force are used to lift the 3 ascending balls, leaving us with 3 units of force. If our whel is designed such that it requires 3 units of force to turn it, then we will have a net energy value of 0 and our friend friction will bring it to a stop.
IF 3 units of force are MORE than is required to move the wheel (less wheel mass? better bearings? no load?)
Then we will have an excess of force imparted on the wheel. - Think this over and let me know what you think.
as i mentioned earlier, the angle of the horizontal planes determines the RPM (multiple balls in the "waiting" position can counter this effect), and you want the Drop Point on the ascending side to be as high as you can, Top Dead Center would be ideal, but this may cause a problem in the extra momentum consumed in bringing the balls around that much further. On the same note you want your recieving point on the descending side to be as high as possible. so you have a small range of angles to play with, and moving the horizontal ramps vertically until you find the right position, TIMING is very important, one ball MUST drop into the recieving bucket on the descending side at the SAME TIME as a ball is picked up on the recieving bucket of the ascending side.
ALSO one a ball MUST be dropped off at the drop point on the descending side as the SAME TIME as the ball is being dropped off at the top of the ascending side. Ideally you would have all 4 balls going onto/off of the ramps at the same time, to reduce wheel instability.
if i can figure out how to post a picture on this thing i can illustrate this, but its basically the design that was posted several times earlier. If the mass of the wheel is considerably less than the mass of 1/2 the number of working balls there will be excess energy - in theory.
I think you went off track somewhere. You are focusing way too much on the mass of the wheel and not enough on the mass of the balls. The wheel's mass is not that important. It will accelerate slower, but it will still move no matter how massive it is, assuming low friction (bearings, etc.). Your mistake is forgetting that there are twice as many balls on the left as the right.
""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).
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 15, 2007, 12:11:26 AM
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)
You are right about the system not perpetuating. There are more balls on the left than on the right because they rise twice as slowly on the left side, so they have to be denser in order to keep pace with the balls on the right. Just look at the drawings and you will see what I am talking about.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 15, 2007, 12:42:39 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 15, 2007, 12:11:26 AM
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)
You are right about the system not perpetuating. There are more balls on the left than on the right because they rise twice as slowly on the left side, so they have to be denser in order to keep pace with the balls on the right. Just look at the drawings and you will see what I am talking about.
IF there are not the same number of balls rising and falling then your horizontal ramps and/or drop points are off.
The outer balls DO move faster, but they also cover a longer distance with is proportional to the ratio between the two wheels. The balls should all be identicle. If you follow the axial-path as the wheel turns you will see that the balls move in unison.
Hi,
I've been reading lurking for a short while, reading about Mike's capacitor driven bedini motor and Chas Cambell's wheel (bless that guy, he's a star).
However, I am horrified at the willful ignorance and downright stupidity displayed in this forum.
I'm not a skeptic. I believe that there are 'free energy' systems to be found and harnessed. Haven't we already succeeded in such with hydroelectric power ? Clean, safe, renewable. More energy out than it takes to maintain. People like Chas, Bedini, Naudin and others may well stumble upon something that takes humanity to a new level in respect of our use of natural resources.
Having said that, I think we need the skeptics. I try to remain skeptical and impartial when evaluating a system. It's all too easy to look for the results you want to see...
Humbugger may not be the most tactful of posters, but he's withstood post after post of insults and snide comments from certain members of this forum, without stooping to their level and indulging in a tirade of insults and abuse.
He tried time and again to patiently explain to Stephan why Chas Cambell's wheel wouldn't work and Stephan repeatedly missed the point and asked for torque calculations for a system despite having been shown umpteen times that no matter what the torque calculations showed for any given moment in the cycle, overall, the system would fail. I can understand why he was getting frustrated... I was getting frustrated reading it !!! Despite his frustration, he remained reasonably calm and collected. He was attacked at every opportunity by Ash and eventually banned... for being patient ??? Hmmmmm...... Isn't an internet forum a great place ??? One can silence the critics by pressing the 'ban' button instead of using reason...! Well, if you ain't got the facts to support your position, you've always got the 'ban' button, eh Stephan ?
As for Zero.
Heck, boy... You've been told a number of times that you need to brush up on your physics and that you don't know what you are talking about...
It's because of your willful ignorance and constant straw-man arguments that I signed up to this board...
You think you've got some superior secret knowledge because you think you know how to perform a one-inch punch ???? You know zip !!!!
Here's an experiment for you and don't even bother to respond to me until you've gone away and performed it because otherwise I shall just point out that you are being willfully ignorant once more.
I don't want to hear more straw-man arguments about teeters and kegs of beer...
There's a BIG difference between dropping something and letting it roll down a slope and this is where you are setting up straw-men.
Take a set of scales - The sort that you might find in your bathroom.
Take a large heavy weight that will roll. Weigh it. Write that weight down.
Now, take something that you can place on your scales which will give you a slope, down which you are going to roll your weight. Tare the scales so that they display 0.0 once more (thereby eliminating the weight of your ramp from the equation).
Now, this ramp represents Chas Campbell's tubes... The ones the balls roll down and go SMACK when they hit the end...
Right now, I'm not interested in that smack... We know that it imparts energy, that's not in dispute, the Newton's Cradle is working proof of that. What I am going to demonstrate to you is from where it gets that extra energy and hopefully you'll see why those who know what they are talking about are telling you that you don't. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Zero... They're right.
Place your weight on the ramp on your scales and allow it to roll down the ramp, falling off the end and off the scales.
Did it show the same weight as when it was sitting still ?? No. Why ?
Gravity will pull the weight downwards but, the ramp translates some of that downward force into lateral force. The weight is pushed sideways. Therefore, when being displaced by the ramp, the weight registers less on the scales.
This has nothing to do with riding up and down a train carriage on a trolley being pushed by someone else... That's just another straw-man argument. The big difference between your straw-man and the genuine case is that in your scenario, the trolley and train are on the level and the trolley is being pushed or pulled. If your train was heading downhilll and the guy was riding on the trolley, being pulled downhill by gravity, then he would apparently weigh less if he were also riding a set of scales on that trolley... This is because the support (the train), is falling away from him... NASA use the science behind this phenomenon to create what we know as the vomit-comet. The plane falls away from the passengers at the same rate that they fall to Earth, thereby simulating the conditions found in orbit. Freefall.
Chas' tubes and his pool-balls aren't in freefall, of course, but the rotation of the wheel (in effect, the tube falling away toward ground) and the slope of the tube (again, falling away toward ground) lessen the effect of the ball on the wheel.
In other words. A ball rolling down a tube on a wheel will not impart as much force due to gravity as a ball sitting in a cup at the end...
So, the energy required to displace the ball laterally has been robbed from the system. If that ball were sitting still in a cup on the edge of the wheel, it would be placing all its weight there for the entire arc. The ball isn't placing all its weight at the edge of the wheel because the sloping tube is preventing that from happening.
I could be totally wrong about all this. I'm not a qualified engineer but when I see qualified engineers and physics professors telling a kid he's wrong and that kid keeps arguing and demonstrating the vast chasm between his ego and his knowledge it makes me wonder about the meaning of the name 'Zero'.. Does it refer to your IQ, your amount of common-sense, your knowledge of the world around you, your attention-span, your ability to comprehend simple explanations or your willingness to learn and understand ?
Stephan, after seeing how you moderate this forum, allowing it to be a circus of abuse and ignorance, banning those who try to remain patient in the face of idiocy and insults and permitting snake-oil salesmen and dumb kids to post unhindered and unchallenged, I think I've seen enough.
I was thinking of joining up and sharing my experiences (my SSG is sitting next to me running, right now) but this thread has quite put me off.
My respect and admiration to those who patiently and carefully take the time to explain, to those who diligently try to replicate and also to those who take the trouble to understand, you are this forum's only saving grace.
People like Zero, Ash and the other snake-oil sellers... Well... You guys are ten-a-penny.
The RoadRunner..
Here is a simple experiment to prove this concept::
Start with a Lever, fulcrum placed at a 2:1 ratio
a bucket on each end to hold the balls.
now incorporate a mechanism to dump the buckets (or otherwise release the ball) into a bowl.
1 bowl is at the top of the short end, other bown is at the bottom of the long end.
Now - To begin the test, place a ball in each bucket and align the lever so that the long end is all the way up, then release.
You will find that the lever will move and their balls will be in their respective buckets.
attaching several of these levers around the axis of the wheel is just a step away.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 15, 2007, 02:17:46 AM
Here is a simple experiment to prove this concept::
Start with a Lever, fulcrum placed at a 2:1 ratio
a bucket on each end to hold the balls.
now incorporate a mechanism to dump the buckets (or otherwise release the ball) into a bowl.
1 bowl is at the top of the short end, other bown is at the bottom of the long end.
Now - To begin the test, place a ball in each bucket and align the lever so that the long end is all the way up, then release.
You will find that the lever will move and their balls will be in their respective buckets.
attaching several of these levers around the axis of the wheel is just a step away.
I cannot tell if you are pulling my leg. You realize that the lever only lifts the ball halfway up the height of the long side? This means there is no way to get a ball from the bowl on top of the short side to the bucket on top of the long side.
EXACTLY! Which is why the placement of the ramps is so important.
there is a range outside of which you either have too little dropping distance to impart the necessary force on the wheel, or your ramps are not steep enough to deliver the balls horizontally to the other side.
"I could be totally wrong about all this. I'm not a qualified engineer but when I see qualified engineers and physics professors telling a kid he's wrong"
First off, I do not recall Hum telling me I was wrong on what I was saying. In fact, others
were not understanding what I was referring to, and mixing things up.
Also, I do not have to believe that Hum was an engineer. And or if he was, whats to say
that he was not being intentionally misleading...
I understand that the weight will be less when its moving down the Tube.. however,
because of the very short time its traveling the tube.. the partial gravity loss
is fractional and not a concern at all. And, the energy output at the end,
which others at first were not understanding... and overlooking... IS
a factor in power that needs to be accounted for. (and was not!, and still has not!)
Also, your vomit comet plays no role in the discussion because the wheel is
rotating too slow to reduce the impact forces much at all. And or even
the gravity pull of the balls. If the wheel were really cranking, then Id
agree.. but thats not the case at all.
And finally, Id be willing to bet that you are Hum, under a new account.
Nope, I do not know everything... not even close. Nor do I fully claim that
the wheel works (with tweaks fixed). But, I do know that there was
something being overlooked - and to this post, nobody has calculated it
yet. And or if they do, will probably fudge the values.
The reality of it all is, that just like any of these posts, there will always
be the so called skeptic who has invested interest in derailing attempts
at free energy at the source.
Its far better to let others fail on their own, and over time possibly find
a working solution... than to accept a strangers math... or harsh
beatings on a message board.
Such bad attitudes Never will produce anything but negativity.
Quote from: zero on September 15, 2007, 04:03:39 AM
I understand that the weight will be less when its moving down the Tube..
If you do understand that, it is a new realization. You were swearing that the ball rolling down the ramp inside the wheel still imparts its full downward force to the wheel during the roll. Here is what you said:
QuoteWhen the ball rolls on his down-slanted PVC "intake" pipes, Gravity is still pulling it down
with the same force. But additionally, when the ball hits the waiting spot - it imparts
the balls extra energy to the wheel.
What you still do not understand, however, is how irrelevant the calculation of the impact force is. Instead of calculating that, we are assuming the ball is teleported into the receptacle cup in the outer wheel as soon as it leaves the top of the inner wheel. If you cannot understand that having the ball in the wheel receptacle earlier (and therefore higher) is equal to waiting on the ball to roll down the ramp inside the wheel and then impact the receptacle a second or whatever later, then you do not understand some basic laws regarding potential and kinetic energy. You are not doing anyone a service by urging them to make these pointless calculations, and by pointing this out, hopefully I am saving someone the needless effort. This is why skeptics like Hum are useful - they can save people alot of time.
Yes, it is a new realization. I am open to learning. Just not open to bashings
and people launching false claims and neglect of factual data. As well
as overly negative and nonconstructive and deconstructive commentary.
The ball being in the wheel immediately has fractional value over its
time in the slide. Yet the energy created from the slide will impart
significantly much more energy.
You have not proven to me that its the other way around. Nor will you,
because its not true.
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 15, 2007, 01:52:44 AM
Place your weight on the ramp on your scales and allow it to roll down the ramp, falling off the end and off the scales.
Did it show the same weight as when it was sitting still ?? No. Why ?
Gravity will pull the weight downwards but, the ramp translates some of that downward force into lateral force. The weight is pushed sideways. Therefore, when being displaced by the ramp, the weight registers less on the scales.
The RoadRunner..
Same can be said of an "hour glass" which weighs less when active! .....mmmm, if sand was substituted for ball bearings and ........
PS............it's a pitty Hum was banned :o...........I enjoyed reading his posts although colourful at times but nevertheles interesting and very humorous :D
Im not expert in math and physics... however, lets assume some fake
numbers here:
Shown here is a representation of 2 versions of the wheel.
A) Green ball which is gently rolled into place
B) Blue ball which is thrust at a 45 degree angle downwards
- Each place where the balls are represent 1 second of time
(not realistic, but good enough for the point)
- On the right, there is a scale that approximates the weight energy output
-----
Now, right off the bat, the BLUE ball dives at a slant. It loses a theoretical
1/4 its original weight energy durring that 1second of time.
However.. its acceleration during that time, theoretically multiplies the weight
by a factor of two.
(An example of this would be a Bowling ball handed to you -vs- tossed at you. The
weight energy is multiplied)
These figures may be higher or lower. But, with heavier weights, its possible that
the output forces on the blue side will be even more significant.
The Green balls energy always stays constant.
---
At the end, the Blue ball gains energy over the green... even with the
losses. Sure, it may not be by much... but, it may be enough to
keep the wheel overbalenced and overcome any losses.
Is this what will happen? Are the figures correct?
I dont know. But... I do know that it is a factor that
must be token into account.
I dont know the right Statement about Humb.
But i know,how it feels: if your Horizon is taken by someone,
or if someone directs via my imperfect work.
Or like it feels, if you want to build a tree house for your child and it comes one and says: The tree is too small.
I point, how it is, if one plans a Adveture journey, and more skeptiker wants to convince one, does not in addition-drive, because terrorists are to live there.
Or it comes one and wants to say itself, which one cannot do sail backwards with a sailing boat .
This forum lives because of the prospect on the impossible.
Who knows the formulas, should use them constructionally, and be ready to rewrite them the other day.
The way to the free energy is long and cumbersome. The caravan will achieve its goal only if it remains in motion.
If the most perfekt engineer drives the slowest car, then the Others must be allowed to overhaul him also.
Humbugger does have my respekt
And Steffans job an the Forum might be harder as we can imagine.
helmut
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
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..
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 15, 2007, 12:11:26 AM
""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
Quote from: rMuD on September 15, 2007, 12:39:39 PM
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..
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
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 :D
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.
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
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 :D
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.
Simple search for "Rotary UPS" on Google, comes up with over 1 million hits...
A Rotary UPS is used for High Current Loads to suppliment the power for the 10-20 seconds til the Generator can fire up on a back up power system.
The Rotary UPS is a Motor that spins a flywheel that powers a Generator
This device is placed after your Transfer switch and is directly connected to your load
All Load in your factory, Datacenter, etc.. etc.. etc.. is always connected thru the Rotary UPS
Grid Power, Generator, Alternate Power, etc.. is switched before it goes to the Rotary UPS
in another words it's a Giant Mechanical Battery
What exactly is a Chas's Flywheel motor.. a Motor powering a Flywheel that spins a Generator.. motor loses power.. clutch disenges the motor, the energy stored in the flywheel continues to power the generator.
Literally, besides the Pulley's which I have seen older Rotary UPS use.. is the same construction and I will say "concept" as I havn't seen chas's device up close, nor is it to scale as the the smallest Rotary UPS I've seen 400KVA, but I know they do down to 30KVA
mgeups.com
http://upsci.com/UPS-rotary.htm
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37516&x=7
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/rotary_ups_200.html
http://www.criticalpowergroup.com/html/rotary_ups___continuous_power_.html
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/5730/612
Well Roadrunner, firstly, I have more respect for you than a typical so called
Skeptic, because (if you are telling the truth) you are doing actual work
towards the goal.
Willfull Ignorance? Nope. Im willing to learn. However, when I tried to
explain my position I was ignored, or the data was being misunderstood
and overlooked.
Ive told you, I now believe that you are correct in that a moving mass will
weight less. However, How much less per time unit? And, How much
energy is gained over time and imparted on impact? These have not been
answered by anyone. Only THEORIZED. Its people like this who claim that they are right First... and then they belittle and attack.. all without any proof.
If Im in an elevator, yes, my weight may vary. However, what if i suddenly
fall to my butt. The downwards energy I create will put stresses on the
cables and will cause the elevator car to bounce. That is exporting more
energy output, than if I simply rode the elevator without falling inside it.
In the case of the machine, I also agree that some of the energy is also
lost because the tubes are at a side angle and not completely straight
down. Ive always understood that. However, because the ball is going
at a downwards direction, and also the wheel is able to be affected by
the forces... then a good deal of the energy will transfer just fine.
And again.. how much is lost? How much is imparted?
I had even drawn up a modification idea which curves the balls to a straight
path as well... which would even clear up those losses.
I apologize for accusing you of being someone else. I was heated and
frustrated - and it was a bad decision... even if its True. And, either way,
there is no real way to prove such a thing anyway - as anything digital can
be faked and manipulated by hackings.
Now, until someone can show without a doubt the numbers behind
this, I will stand by my Ideas. As far as Ive seen yet, ever attempt
at trying to debunk it has failed in logistics.
In the martial arts world, there are those who swear with their lives
that there is no way to generate massive power to knock someone
out from 3" distance or less. People rant and belittle over such things
all over the place... because they are stubborn and ignorant.
Some have actually tried for a short time, and failed, giving up well
before they could have made the discovery. They then believe that
they have the right to bash even harder against it.
Yet, I have took snipits of info and pieced it together and after tons
of time working with it... have managed to figure out what 99% of people
say is impossible. And have managed to KO at least 3 people with
a fraction of my available power - with only a few inches from their heads.
Ive also seen scientist bundle data because they were not considering
all the facts. On a science special - they decided to test various martial
arts blows to see which was more powerful. Yet, they neglected to take
into consideration that each artists has variously different masses.
So, while the 140lb chinese Kungfu guy may have hit with less power than the
250lb Taekwando guy... The Chinese fighters resulting forces would have been
much stronger in comparison had the 250lb guy been 140lbs. Meaning,
if both people weighed the same, the results would have been opposite of
their so called findings.
And this all coming from high level science/math "experts" loaded with tons of high level equipment costing oogles of money... with like terrabytes of data per
seconds of its recordings.
All fouled up by a lack of common sense!
(and that was only One of the things they messed up, out of many...)
rMuD,
Im not gona say that I do or do not know if Chas's flywheel is a working
concept.
However, I think its different than you explained it.
The idea is similar to people who Pull huge objects with wheels such
as trucks or planes - with only their strength.
Once the mass is moving, it takes less and less energy to move them.
Therefore, its like a mouse powering a car. The tiny efficient engine,
with help from an intermediate mass (flywheel), will be able to overcome
friction easier - and is able to power a generator with much more revs
per sec than should be possible without expending much more power.
The most frictional forces come from the pulleys and ratios.. which the
flywheel helps to keep in check.
While sure, there is energy being stored into the flywheel.. that does not
mean that is 'all' the excess energy.
Again, not sure If im correct. Just a theory.
Quote from: rMuD on September 15, 2007, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
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 :D
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.
Simple search for "Rotary UPS" on Google, comes up with over 1 million hits...
ahhh, great! Thanks for the keywords.
QuoteA Rotary UPS is used for High Current Loads to suppliment the power for the 10-20 seconds til the Generator can fire up on a back up power system. The Rotary UPS is a Motor that spins a flywheel that powers a Generator. This device is placed after your Transfer switch and is directly connected to your load. All Load in your factory, Datacenter, etc.. etc.. etc.. is always connected thru the Rotary UPS Grid Power, Generator, Alternate Power, etc.. is switched before it goes to the Rotary UPS in another words it's a Giant Mechanical Battery
Yes, that's what I found so interesting about it. You can store energy in just about any mass.
QuoteWhat exactly is a Chas's Flywheel motor.. a Motor powering a Flywheel that spins a Generator.. motor loses power.. clutch disenges the motor, the energy stored in the flywheel continues to power the generator.
That's what it appears as to you at your first sight of it. I feel his device makes for an interesting opportunity for you and me to talk about flywheels, slippery drive belts and pulsed acceleration with the slippery belt being the pulse machine. All we need from Chas is the suggestion there is something really exiting hidden in here.
I think it's fantastic to see those dynamic UPS apparatus. They work exactly as I would build them I say in my ignorance of not knowing they even existed. hahaha I should have known really.... but anyway, I read around a bit and they fix the driving axle onto the flywheel? How does it work?
QuoteLiterally, besides the Pulley's which I have seen older Rotary UPS use.. is the same construction and I will say "concept" as I havn't seen chas's device up close, nor is it to scale as the the smallest Rotary UPS I've seen 400KVA, but I know they do down to 30KVA
There remains much to play and tune the resonant flapping of the belts into harmony with the speed and the size of the wheels. I'm not making any promise there is a benefit if all those effects are tuned. One could gather a lot of data on this. The slipping just caps the energy intake.
What I want to know:
1) How much losses are there relative to the size of those big flywheels.
2) I'm trying to imagine using a windmill to zero out the losses.
3) What kind of size ratio would it need?
4) How big would a class A area windmill need to be to keep our 1000 kg flywheel spinning.
The big trick here is to store the wind energy mechanically. Take that thought as literally as making the actual windmill out of the flywheel. ;D I guess I also want to know the drag a floating flywheel presents per liter of water displaced. It's like a boat only it has no water displacement. And my final question is about flywheels made out of water but lets get to that later.
Quote
mgeups.com
http://upsci.com/UPS-rotary.htm
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37516&x=7
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/rotary_ups_200.html
http://www.criticalpowergroup.com/html/rotary_ups___continuous_power_.html
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/5730/612
Very industrial, there nothing available for normal people? The whole market is empty? wiew? I hear they have power outages every year in places like Florida. But I can imagine a few other places where peoples luxury livings go without electricity every now and then.
From a product point of view: As long as it has a windmill component we can put all the overunity machines in the flywheel we like, and no one will complain about it. But personally I would be interested in seeing a newman motor running on a dead battery spin up a flywheel. It would be cool to see how much mass such motor can keep up to speed for next to no amps.
About David Hamel, you mention balancing the flywheel was a problem but I think a slight unbalance and a bit of freedom to wobble combined with a ring of repulsive magnets around the rim could actually make use of the wobble by bouncing it back inwards.
hamelarian aquamagnetic bearings ::)
Quote from: zero on September 15, 2007, 05:23:22 PM
Well Roadrunner, firstly, I have more respect for you than a typical so called
Skeptic, because (if you are telling the truth) you are doing actual work
towards the goal.
That's because I'm not a staunch skeptic, as I explained in my very first post.
I think that there ARE ways to be found of tapping into energy resources that are currently unexploited and the 'it cannot be done' attitude does not lead to progress. Only the 'can it be done' and 'how can it be done' attitudes will further our development in this area.
However, I remain a 'skeptic' because I always try to disprove my own theories... and when I cannot, I present them to others who I know will rip them apart.
A good theory stands skepticism and scrutiny and a bad one quickly shows its holes.
Quote
Willfull Ignorance? Nope. Im willing to learn. However, when I tried to
explain my position I was ignored, or the data was being misunderstood
and overlooked.
Zero, believe me, you weren't being overlooked. It may be that the people trying to explain the situation didn't put it in a way that you could grasp easily but you were told a number of times that you needed to brush up on your understanding of physics, especially in respect of Potential and Kinetic Energy because that's what's in play here.
QuoteIve told you, I now believe that you are correct in that a moving mass will
weight less. However, How much less per time unit? And, How much
energy is gained over time and imparted on impact? These have not been
answered by anyone. Only THEORIZED.
Careful. The mass does not weigh less simply because it is moving. It apparently weighs less because the structure which would otherwise be supporting it and bearing its weight is deflecting its weight to the side causing it to move. It's translating the pull of gravity into sideways motion.
I didn't theorise or simply tell you that you are wrong.
I gave you an experiment to try for yourself which would give you an understanding of the magnitude of the factors involved. In other words, that simple experiment (which I guess you still have not attempted) will give you some idea of the sort of figures we're talking about and how the trade-off between a mass at rest and a mass being deflected works.
You claim to practice a martial art, so I have a basis on which I can help you see your misunderstanding.
If I were to throw a punch at you you can block it in one of two ways (for argument's sake).
You can literally stop it dead by meeting it with an equivalent force, or...
You deflect it. I'm sure you understand that deflecting the blow requires less energy, creates less stress on the target (your hand/arm) and doesn't rob the incoming blow of its energy. So, when I throw my punch at you, you deflect my blow, it misses your nose but my own momentum carries the blow past you and I'm off balance... A similar thing is happening with those slanted tubes. They are deflecting the weight of the ball and the fact that the ball goes smack into the end of the tube doesn't indicate any gain, it just indicates that the ball imparts its energy quickly.
Yes, this creates more stress on the target, but it does not impart MORE energy and this is what people here have been trying to help you to understand. Please, don't simply come up with more examples that you think will uphold your argument because each time that you do, you are only demonstrating where you misunderstand. Try to see how the forces work.
Seriously, take ramps, weights, scales etc. etc. etc... Do the experiments.
When you've done so, you will understand and will have a better idea of the trade-offs.
QuoteIf Im in an elevator, yes, my weight may vary. However, what if i suddenly
fall to my butt. The downwards energy I create will put stresses on the
cables and will cause the elevator car to bounce. That is exporting more
energy output, than if I simply rode the elevator without falling inside it.
I think you are wrong here. It doesn't impart more energy.
[EDIT: Correction - It does actually impart more energy, but not quite for the reasons you think. The extra energy you impart is equivalent to the energy you expended when you got off your butt before you stepped into the elevator. You would impart the SAME amount of energy if you simply sat down slowly but it would create less stress on the elevator mechanisms. Hopefully the continuation of my post will make this clear to you.]
Let's stick with this ride in the elevator. This analogy will serve our purpose for the moment.
Fred weighs 100kg and he travels in the elevator from the top floor to the bottom.
During his entire ride in the lift, he is exerting his force on the floor, however, he notices that while the elevator is accelerating downward, he weighs a little less according to his scales, for example 95kg.
When the elevator stops, he weighs a little more, momentarily, the scales may peak at 110kg (for example).
So, he decides to jump whilst travelling down in the elevator car to see what effect that may have.
During the time that he is in the air (freefalling), he 'weighs' nothing. Even though he has the scales glued to his shoes, they still register 0g. But... The moment he hits the floor of the car, the scales read a heck of a lot more than the 100Kg... But only for a moment.
Where has that 'extra' energy come from ?
It came from the fact that he wasn't being supported by the elevator car (as well as the energy he put in to his legs to jump in the first place... this is much of where your beer-keg and teeter analogies fell down. You were not taking into account the energy required to throw or lift and drop your keg of beer).
So, Fred talks to the elevator engineer and manages to convince him to rig the elevator so that it will travel much faster during the decent.
Fred starts his journey at the top and as the brakes are released from the elevator, it plummets to the ground, almost at freefall. So, this car is now accelerating at approximately 9.81m/s every second. What do Fred's scales say ? He weighs almost nothing. When the brakes are applied at the bottom of the elevator's journey, Fred turns to soup and the elevator engineer has to clean up the mess. However, Fred also broke the scales because his 'weight' was way too much for them.
So, assuming it takes the lift 60 seconds to travel under control and 10 seconds to travel at (or near) freefall we can apply Fred's 'weight' over time and see that the total amount of 'work' is equivalent in all cases. Whether or not Fred is standing in a stationary elevator or floating about in one which is freefalling. The amount of energy delivered to his scales is always the same over the accumulated entire run.
Whatever Fred gains on one side of the journey, he must lose on the other, or vice-versa.
So, ask yourself the question... "Where did all that extra energy come from ? Enough to break the scales." There was no extra energy put into this system so the only explanation is that the energy is the same in all cases, it's either delivered in a short time or delivered over a long period of time.
I do a lot of work with lasers and there are two main ways in which the power of a laser is measured. Watts and Joules.
Joules defines a total amount of energy delivered over any given 'firing'.
Watts defines how quickly that energy is delivered.
A 1 Watt laser, firing for one second delivers one Joule (if I remember correctly).
A 2 Watt laser firing for one second delivers two Joules.
A 2 Watt laser firing for half a second delivers one Joule.
So, to deliver my one Joule of energy, I can either deliver it slowly over a long period of time or deliver it rapidly over a short period of time... But it's still one Joule.
Even a kW laser will only deliver one Joule if its pulse time is sufficiently short (1/1000th sec and in the world of lasers... That's not actually a very short pulse, it's quite a long one).
Does this help ? I keep repeating my suggestion that you go and do some experiments. This is because it's the best way for you to really see what is going on and it will give you a working understanding of the systems in effect.
I've only got the 'evaluation' version of WM2D, so I cannot set up a scene and post it up here because the evaluation version won't let me save out, but I think you'll find that it is accurate enough to give you a fairly good idea of what happens to the momentum of a falling object when it is deflected by an angled surface.
QuoteAnd again.. how much is lost? How much is imparted?
Without doing careful measurements of the components of the wheel in question, we cannot really know for sure, but you can be sure that there is no net gain. Because if there were a net gain, you'd have to be asking yourself where the extra energy came from.
QuoteI had even drawn up a modification idea which curves the balls to a straight
path as well... which would even clear up those losses.
I don't think that it will clear up those losses and when you've done some experiments for yourself, you will see why.
QuoteI apologize for accusing you of being someone else. I was heated and
frustrated - and it was a bad decision... even if its True.
Apology not necessary. I take it that you withdraw your wager then ?
Darn... I thought I was going to make some easy money... Hehehehe !
QuoteAnd, either way,
there is no real way to prove such a thing anyway - as anything digital can
be faked and manipulated by hackings.
Ohhhh... Believe me... I'd have left you with absolutely no doubt that I am who I say I am... Especially if you'd talked to me over the phone. You would have no doubt that the person you found from the Google search is the person who is talking to you on the phone.
Of course, you could always claim that Hum has asked someone to stand in and take the call and that he personally knows the person that I claim to be and the whole thing is a big conspiracy... blah... But... Why ? What would I or Hum have to gain ?
I'm just trying to help you understand that your issues weren't ignored, that they were addressed and at the moment you are unable to see the wood for the trees. I'm not being detrimental, it happens to us all until that moment where things go 'click'. I'm just trying to help you get that 'click'.
QuoteNow, until someone can show without a doubt the numbers behind
this, I will stand by my Ideas. As far as Ive seen yet, ever attempt
at trying to debunk it has failed in logistics.
It's not failed. You've failed to see it. There's a big difference.
Even if I worked out all the numbers and plotted graphs using sophisticated accelerometry from my own experimentation... You'd still not buy it... And why should you ?
This takes me back to my original suggestion... Don't argue your position from the results of your 'thought experiments'... Understand the true nature of the system you are exploring by doing some real experiments and you will very soon see that even though 'intuition' says one thing, the real world says another.
I've had various gravity-wheel designs floating about in my head for a while and wanted to know why gravity wheels generally don't work... This thread has helped clarify that for me.
You're in a similar situation. You see something happening in your head, in your 'thought experiment' and although it's a valid approach to take in the early stages, there are times when you really must bite the bullet and get your hands dirty in the real world and this appears to be one of those times. Your 'thought experiment' is only giving you part of the picture and you need to see the whole picture for yourself for that 'click' of realisation.
QuoteIn the martial arts world, there are those who swear with their lives
that there is no way to generate massive power to knock someone
out from 3" distance or less. People rant and belittle over such things
all over the place... because they are stubborn and ignorant.
Right. And I'm trying to tell you not to be stubborn and ignorant, but to try some experiments as suggested because people have tried to explain to you where you misunderstand and it's not working. So... Don't argue your case any more, please. We can understand what it is that you are trying to say and why... Yes, of course you are right that a keg of beer placed gently into my arms imparts less energy than one which is thrown at me... But you're not modelling the entire system (or its relevant parts) in that analogy... (in fact, you are introducing factors which may not be present in the system you are trying to model)
Could someone please set up a WM2D model for Zero that shows a ball, a ramp and the various vector forces applied during the ball's progression ??
It may help him to understand what's going on.
What's happening here is all concerned are simply appearing arrogant and stubborn (myself included).
I want to get you past the misunderstanding so that you can go back and re-read this topic.
You'll see that people
were making the effort to answer your issues and you'll kick yourself when you see the light. Admittedly, I don't think that anyone has spelled it out for you in terms of each of the vector forces involved, complete with formulae and figures, but in the general sense, you've been answered more than once and as I've said before, you're only managing to see one side of the equation, you're not seeing where the 'extra energy' is coming from (and that's the other side of the equation). This is evident from the analogies you keep presenting.
If working out those vector forces is what it is going to take for you to understand the whole picture, then I repeat my suggestion of modelling it in something like WM2D because that will display the forces for you.
Come on, Zero... While you have your 'mature head' on... Do the experiments and tell us your findings. Or... If someone is kind enough to take the trouble to model it up for you in WM2D, then download the evaluation version (if you don't already have it) and play with the model.
It will all become clear... I promise.
[EDIT: I should make it clear that the term 'weight' here really refers to the force applied to the supporting platform. I don't for one moment believe that the actual mass of an object changes because it is deflected by a ramp. Likewise, Neil Armstrong's mass did not reduce when he stood on the Lunar surface even though a set of scales would give a reading equivalent to about 1/6th of the reading they would give on Terra Firma. I apologise to the pedants who might want to rip me to bits for my use of the term 'weight' in this context.]
The RoadRunner..
Just a thought here: But if i wanted to move a wheel with a ball on a ramp i would do it at the upper 1/4-arch
where the both sideways AND downward motion of the ball would move the wheel. It seems this would be the most efficient method of extracting energy while rolling a ball down a ramp.
It's Sunday afternoon of the 16th - should get some feedback from Ash soon on the second testing session.
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 06:30:04 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 15, 2007, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
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 :D
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.
Simple search for "Rotary UPS" on Google, comes up with over 1 million hits...
ahhh, great! Thanks for the keywords.
QuoteA Rotary UPS is used for High Current Loads to suppliment the power for the 10-20 seconds til the Generator can fire up on a back up power system. The Rotary UPS is a Motor that spins a flywheel that powers a Generator. This device is placed after your Transfer switch and is directly connected to your load. All Load in your factory, Datacenter, etc.. etc.. etc.. is always connected thru the Rotary UPS Grid Power, Generator, Alternate Power, etc.. is switched before it goes to the Rotary UPS in another words it's a Giant Mechanical Battery
Yes, that's what I found so interesting about it. You can store energy in just about any mass.
QuoteWhat exactly is a Chas's Flywheel motor.. a Motor powering a Flywheel that spins a Generator.. motor loses power.. clutch disenges the motor, the energy stored in the flywheel continues to power the generator.
That's what it appears as to you at your first sight of it. I feel his device makes for an interesting opportunity for you and me to talk about flywheels, slippery drive belts and pulsed acceleration with the slippery belt being the pulse machine. All we need from Chas is the suggestion there is something really exiting hidden in here.
I think it's fantastic to see those dynamic UPS apparatus. They work exactly as I would build them I say in my ignorance of not knowing they even existed. hahaha I should have known really.... but anyway, I read around a bit and they fix the driving axle onto the flywheel? How does it work?
I don't see much going on here with chas's device, when he specifies his results it is in the rated load on the sticker, where I think he is a bit confused on energy needed to operate his device. Rotary UPS is also used to handle spike loads when your near your full capacity, the flywheel can absorb the peak loads.. like a motor starting, then it can spin back up over time to cover that load.. if I had several 1000HP motors starting at once, I'd rather use a Rotary UPS to handle the mega watt load for 1-2 seconds vs only needing 200-300kw to keep it running
a clutch and/or a torque convertor on a car with a Automatic Transmission, or a "go-kart" clutch ???
Quote
QuoteLiterally, besides the Pulley's which I have seen older Rotary UPS use.. is the same construction and I will say "concept" as I havn't seen chas's device up close, nor is it to scale as the the smallest Rotary UPS I've seen 400KVA, but I know they do down to 30KVA
There remains much to play and tune the resonant flapping of the belts into harmony with the speed and the size of the wheels. I'm not making any promise there is a benefit if all those effects are tuned. One could gather a lot of data on this. The slipping just caps the energy intake.
What I want to know:
1) How much losses are there relative to the size of those big flywheels.
2) I'm trying to imagine using a windmill to zero out the losses.
3) What kind of size ratio would it need?
4) How big would a class A area windmill need to be to keep our 1000 kg flywheel spinning.
get the spec sheets on the Rotary UPS, they usually have all that information and formula's if not a salesman will be glad to either do the calculation or give you the formula.
Quote
The big trick here is to store the wind energy mechanically. Take that thought as literally as making the actual windmill out of the flywheel. ;D I guess I also want to know the drag a floating flywheel presents per liter of water displaced. It's like a boat only it has no water displacement. And my final question is about flywheels made out of water but lets get to that later.
a windmill is a flywheel, they try to reduce the mass of the blades so that is can start with slower wind speeds. A floating flywheel? I believe that the weight loss to make it float vs weight to give to the system isn't worth it... and that wasn't my idea.. no way I'd try that, or concrete
Quote
Quote
mgeups.com
http://upsci.com/UPS-rotary.htm
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37516&x=7
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/rotary_ups_200.html
http://www.criticalpowergroup.com/html/rotary_ups___continuous_power_.html
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/5730/612
Very industrial, there nothing available for normal people? The whole market is empty? wiew? I hear they have power outages every year in places like Florida. But I can imagine a few other places where peoples luxury livings go without electricity every now and then.
Rotary UPS are only good for a few seconds, usually enough time to start a generator without having power interuption... when designing a system it's cost vs tolerable power outage.. and cost of statuc ups vs a rotary ups.. rotary really doesn't come into play til your into the megawatt range, but for some applications as small as 400kva
in a consumer product, less than 1% of houses have Generators, and .0001% of them have a need less than 5-10 minyutes of down time, and $100 USD at electronics store for a Battery UPS would cover the need for 99.99999% of that 0.0001% that need that kinda uptime :)
Quote
From a product point of view: As long as it has a windmill component we can put all the overunity machines in the flywheel we like, and no one will complain about it. But personally I would be interested in seeing a newman motor running on a dead battery spin up a flywheel. It would be cool to see how much mass such motor can keep up to speed for next to no amps.
if a newman motor could start a big flywheel with little energy, there would be no need to use a flywheel :)
Quote
About David Hamel, you mention balancing the flywheel was a problem but I think a slight unbalance and a bit of freedom to wobble combined with a ring of repulsive magnets around the rim could actually make use of the wobble by bouncing it back inwards.
hamelarian aquamagnetic bearings ::)
give it a try.. but that is alot of energy pushing on the structure to mount it...
Quote from: zero on September 15, 2007, 05:41:12 PM
rMuD,
Im not gona say that I do or do not know if Chas's flywheel is a working
concept.
However, I think its different than you explained it.
The idea is similar to people who Pull huge objects with wheels such
as trucks or planes - with only their strength.
Once the mass is moving, it takes less and less energy to move them.
Therefore, its like a mouse powering a car. The tiny efficient engine,
with help from an intermediate mass (flywheel), will be able to overcome
friction easier - and is able to power a generator with much more revs
per sec than should be possible without expending much more power.
The most frictional forces come from the pulleys and ratios.. which the
flywheel helps to keep in check.
While sure, there is energy being stored into the flywheel.. that does not
mean that is 'all' the excess energy.
Again, not sure If im correct. Just a theory.
mechanically they are neraly identical, except less pulley's which should make the Rotary UPS more effecient.. if not they wouldn't have evolved to be direct drive
it takes energy to "load" a flywheel.. and takes energy to keep a flywheel rotating in the real world as well.. what a flywheel is good for is pulse loads.. it takes alot of energy to decelerate a mass that is much larger than the load... but it's going to take at least that much energy to spin up that flywheel.. then energy to overcome the mechanical loss of keeping it spinning... but it's just over more time...
now I am sure this doesn't make a lot sense to you, because it falls under the same category as laying a mass on a machine to provide work via gravity, vs dropping it, or putting it on a slope and to provide work.. now that I understand more of where you are coming from with the hitting vs pushing.. I think someone else or I can explain the lack of 0 net gain in terms you can relate too.. but that is for another time.. I feel it's more important to go out for a beer :)
Hi all,
It?s been a long thread and, by now, it should be obvious that Campbell?s machine is not working. Not the slightest chance. Of course that there are some late-comers keeping discussing it and they?ll probably keep doing so for a while. But the main arguments were already posted.
I?d like to remind everyone that it was one of the most intense discussed topics over an interval of 48h into the last year or so. A real team effort. It certainly wouldn?t be as it was without the great contribution of Hum. Actually, besides everyone?s own thoughts, lessons learned and personal and conclusions, I find the MOST VALUABLE idea and finding posted also by Hum. It quotes:
Quote from: Humbugger on September 09, 2007, 03:10:45 PM
If I were a strategist working for CIA, MIB, big oil, the PTB, etc., it would not take me long to suggest that the strategy of sending dozens of skeptics into arenas like this would be stupid and futile. It could actually further the "progress of the science" if they were at all effective at truncating futile efforts.
Far more effective would be the placement of a few strategic leadership folks who would pose as avid enthusiasts and openly encourage every proposed idea no matter how easily it was proven unworkable by even simple inspection. The hoards of sincere hopeful believers manipulated by a few chuckling false gurus getting rich pretending to carry the banner of free energy heroes,soldiers and martyrs. Now you have an effective strategy for denigrating the whole field and assuring no progress.
Anyone insisting on critical thought would have to be silenced, banned, ridiculed and shouted down or frustrated into oblivion. The place would become so completely full of rabidly-pursued unworkable ideas and ultra-enthusiastic fervent replicators that anyone with a decent ability to think and reason abstractly would forget the whole idea of free energy after one visit!
What better way to push potentially contributing thinking people away and to sourly discredit the whole free energy concept as being foolish? The "mole skeptic" idea looks limp by comparison.
Next time anyone uses the "oil-man" accusation in response to a logical skeptical argument, think about that.
Humbugger ~ I don't work for nobody ~ I ain't got no badges!
Hopefully one can prove me wrong and show us a better finding hereby posted.
Anyway, Hum may be a skeptic but he adds intellectual struggle, great discussions, humor and he helps keeping our legs on the ground.
He is a man of honor, I?d bet all my money on it. All that it takes is a request for him to leave. I suppose that it would have been more than enough. But the forum would lose valuable juice..
@ Stefan,
Banning Hum again is not only the greatest insult to his person but it goes beyond that.
You may be empowered to ban him, Stefan, as others may be empowered to take the OU.com domain from you and shut the whole thing down. Abusive? Yes, exactly my point.
So, I fully understand that running the business and keeping the spirit alive is not an easy task.
But as you say, there has to be a right ?balance? in doing it?
Although Hum may be called a skeptic, he added great value to the both sides of the balance.
And the skeptics here understand your position and support you, day by day.
Anyway, as seen from above quote, not skeptics are the real issue?
Please reconsider your decision about Hum.
Tx,
Tinu
I am probably categorized with hum... but you probably banned one of the most proponents of new energy... by bringing people back to reality on basic simple known by simple math is not going to work.. and proven for 1000 years...
If you put the task to the math for knocking over a tree.. one will say that it takes a massive amount of energy to knock that tree over.. more than it's economically worth... yet taking a few thousand watts of energy to cut the tree in half with a chainsaw vs pushing it over would be a considerable positive gain in energy created that what it took to produce it.
this forum, these group of people need to focus on things outside of general physics... it's been beaten by a dead horse for 1000 years... let keep the focus outside of the box.. if we want a gravity machine, we need something that interferes with gravitational force so that there is a net gain or loss.. it's not going to be levers, pulleys, etc.. "simple machine" math spin it 20,000rpm, tune to the resonance frequency at the molecular level... get something beyond normal physics of matter... or work on a exception like the fastest path isn't a straight line, or re-arrange parts of a area and it takes up less... something has to be outside of the general rules of matter
now saying that.. watching the video where a guy uses magnets to move a ball around a circle.. using pendilums to do the magnetic gate, and the ball to apply a force to the pendulum to sync the swing, and to keep it moving.. and it's been running for a month http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ&mode=related&search= (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ&mode=related&search=) mechanically self sustaining resonance... or not.. reply video says he has to dust it off every few days or it will restart.. meaning he has to stop it every few days and restart it.. but I'd say this device is near unity
Atack a cripled man? jest fur asking if questons? I thing Ashtwon shoul be ashame of his owen self! Steven is the bos yes butt is beeing a bad bos. Ashtwen is who was hrashing Humbrgr if yask me! Just making fun of huumberger becuaz he asks the saym qestons untill a ansewr? an humbreger gets a baning? you guy are the sickest one!
I can built an noen circut and I did it! It dont work to chargering up any batterys fast like Ashtown says it. Only can make a chargings up faster if moters are slowwing down and draws more amps!
I using of moters 58 years sense world war two surplus times and I am to done many moters with useing the capactor and the toonings to getting a low enuohg power to do easy runings of without any loads. this did generatos too with them and cannot ever be charge baterys fast so more then fastnes of drayning down that main batery! I even did try many of a 400 CPZS herzes moters and using 400 cpsz herzes generatos too and 12 or 15 dynemoters of US air forces kinds and army. even three phazes too!
I agrred with Humbreger an I sais "prove it or dont sais it" for Ashtwon! I dont like it if people are to make fun and baning on disabled people! I sais Ashtwon and Stevan are ashame! Butt they making moneys here so Humbergerrt had to be kick off i geuss!
If Chas Campbell paid $50 for his steel ball, I wonder how much Reidar Finsrud paid for his.
The RoadRunner..
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 16, 2007, 09:05:54 AM
If Chas Campbell paid $50 for his steel ball, I wonder how much Reidar Finsrud paid for his.
The RoadRunner..
I guess we are all cheap and disabled in our own perverted ways. Maybe we should all patch in and build the worlds biggest smot device? One of the drawbacks of the smot is that the height of the ramp is limited by the size of the ball? lol?
If we bother him enough I bet we can get Finsrud himself to build it for us. Then we get Richard Brandston to roll the balls up the ramp. Attaching a wheel to our big smot should be easy for us profesional free energy research nerds. We have all the arguments insertion height complications right here in the topic already.
I think 50 Euros per participant would be good to get rid of this cheap feeling. It will bring us closer together like in a cult.
But it would still take a lot of people to buy our own custom made Finstrud-mobile.
I even made a construction drawing.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.go-here.nl%2Fchas-is-cool.png&hash=09641d3bf95e3f1bcb97a5cfca153255b4fd0ddf)
I think it's very artistic already? no?
But doesn't this fix the complications with Chas device already?
There could be a second SMOT at the lower end?
Quote from: rMuD on September 16, 2007, 12:23:45 AM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 06:30:04 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 15, 2007, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: rMuD on September 09, 2007, 09:39:55 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 09, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
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.
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 would be a nightmare to balance.. 1000KG
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 :-) 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
search for "Rotary UPS" on Google,
A Rotary UPS is used for High Current Loads to suppliment the power for the 10-20 seconds til the Generator can fire up on a back up power system. The Rotary UPS is a Motor that spins a flywheel that powers a Generator. This device is placed after your Transfer switch and is directly connected to your load. All Load in your factory, Datacenter, etc.. etc.. etc.. is always connected thru the Rotary UPS Grid Power, Generator, Alternate Power, etc.. is switched before it goes to the Rotary UPS in another words it's a Giant Mechanical Battery
Yes, that's what I found so interesting about it. You can store energy in just about any mass.
Rotary UPS is also used to handle spike loads when your near your full capacity, the flywheel can absorb the peak loads.. like a motor starting, then it can spin back up over time to cover that load.. if I had several 1000HP motors starting at once, I'd rather use a Rotary UPS to handle the mega watt load for 1-2 seconds vs only needing 200-300kw to keep it running
a clutch and/or a torque convertor on a car with a Automatic Transmission, or a "go-kart" clutch ???
Quote
QuoteLiterally, besides the Pulley's which I have seen older Rotary UPS use.. is the same construction and I will say "concept" as I havn't seen chas's device up close, nor is it to scale as the the smallest Rotary UPS I've seen 400KVA, but I know they do down to 30KVA
There remains much to play and tune the resonant flapping of the belts into harmony with the speed and the size of the wheels. I'm not making any promise there is a benefit if all those effects are tuned. One could gather a lot of data on this. The slipping just caps the energy intake.
What I want to know:
1) How much losses are there relative to the size of those big flywheels.
2) I'm trying to imagine using a windmill to zero out the losses.
3) What kind of size ratio would it need?
4) How big would a class A area windmill need to be to keep our 1000 kg flywheel spinning.
get the spec sheets on the Rotary UPS, they usually have all that information and formula's if not a salesman will be glad to either do the calculation or give you the formula.
I've had a look it's the same technology but it's not really the product this idea is looking for. It does however make mechanical energy storage sound very credible. A tank with 1000 liters of mercury and you have all the pressure you need to keep it moving. I'm sure any chemist can come up with an even better set of compounds to do that trick? Bit of ambient heat gradients.
I wrote a blog post about those old clocks (http://www.geocities.com/factuurexpress/blog.html?p=6600)
(sorry for the messed up html lol)
QuoteI just love the concept of machines that run forever without looking after them. I know it's not a reality but it's still impressive how far we actually got.
Cornelis Drebbel, who invented the submarine was granted a patent in 1598 for a machine that told the time, date, and season. The gold machine was mounted in a globe on pillars and was powered by changes in air pressure a sealed glass tub with liquid varied in volume through atmospheric pressure changes.
James Cox and John Joseph Merlin build the Cox's timepiece around 1760. The device is powered from changes in atmospheric pressure via a mercury barometer. The driving barometer contains 68 kilograms (150 pounds) of mercury. The clock is designed to enable the timepiece to run indefinitely and overwinding is prevented by a safety mechanism. The prime mover, encased in a finely detailed clock body, is a Fortin mercury barometer.
Arthur Beverly build the Beverly Clock in 1864. The clock has been running continuously since its construction. The mechanism is driven by variations in atmospheric pressure bot primarly temperature variation. Either cause the air in a one cubic-foot air-tight box to expand and contract, pushing on a diaphragm. A six-degree Celsius temperature variation over the course of each day creates enough pressure to raise a one-pound weight by one inch or 11 joules.
Jaeger LeCoulter created the Atmos, a modern clock powered by the same principle as the Beverly Clock and Cox's clock. A mixture of gas and liquid (ethyl chloride) expands as the temperature rises and compresses a spring. For two days operation a temperature variation of one degree in the range between 15 and 30 degrees Celsius is enough. It also uses a torsion pendulum that executes two torsional oscillations per minute.
In a mechanical watch the mainspring stores the energy to operate, a long strip of hardened and blued steel or some specialised steel alloy, iron-nickel-chromium with the addition of cobalt- molybdenum- beryllium and cold-rolled for hardening. Sich spring on average is about 0.05?0.2 mm thick.
A torsion pendulum rotates about the vertical axis of the wire, spinning it, instead of swinging like a pendulum, it has a heavy disk or wheel with 3 or 4 chrome balls on ornate spokes, hanging on the torsion spring. The force of the twisting torsion spring reverses the direction of rotation, so the torsion pendulum oscillates slowly, clockwise and counterclockwise. The speed can be tuned by adjusting the spokes with the 4 balls that act like a governor. The clock's gears apply pulses at the top of the torsion spring to keep the wheel going as it rotates slowly it only takes little energy. the oscillation period changes with temperature. The closer the balls move to the axle, the smaller the moment of inertia and the faster it will turn.
Use that principal just make it much bigger?
QuoteQuote
The big trick here is to store the wind energy mechanically. Take that thought as literally as making the actual windmill out of the flywheel. ;D I guess I also want to know the drag a floating flywheel presents per liter of water displaced. It's like a boat only it has no water displacement. And my final question is about flywheels made out of water but lets get to that later.
a windmill is a flywheel, they try to reduce the mass of the blades so that is can start with slower wind speeds. A floating flywheel? I believe that the weight loss to make it float vs weight to give to the system isn't worth it...
Yeah, but that isn't really the point of having an idea. If you do that with them it's not useful having them. It takes effort to come up with something workable. Just disbelieving it does not take any effort and doesn't lead anywhere.
I'm always happy to look at things just the way they are? I dunno? I don't need any artificial attributes to clutter my picture. What I mean is that I really have no idea how well a floating flywheel would work. Now I don't think this or that, I know that I don't know it. Given how fast boats can sail while even displacing the water it is not a nonsense question.
Answers like "probably not" without explaining what there is so probable about it are just as premature as to claim this is something revolutionary.
For me the black box remains a black box if it is a black box. Chas may say it's free energy, you may say it's probably noting but I will say it's a black box if that's what it is. Don't get me wrong, but it's already sad to see people do this with other peoples ideas. Imagine what they do with their own ideas? :-[ I don't see the point in creatively thinking towards a goal then stopping half way because it's probably nothing. LOL You had to figure out the flywheel discs didn't fit into the elevator first then you knew. Before that you couldn't have made a good guess about it. If you would say we can also set the flywheel on fire, that will sure prevent it from working. Then at least I can engineer something to fix the problem envisioned. You think it's not going to work, it's easy to stop doing that kind of thinking. This train of thought is not going anyplace you see? For a large percentage the things actually become nothings the moment one nominates them as such. It's very funny really.
QuoteQuoteQuote
mgeups.com
http://upsci.com/UPS-rotary.htm
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37516&x=7
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/rotary_ups_200.html
http://www.criticalpowergroup.com/html/rotary_ups___continuous_power_.html
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/5730/612
Very industrial, there nothing available for normal people? The whole market is empty? wiew? I hear they have power outages every year in places like Florida. But I can imagine a few other places where peoples luxury livings go without electricity every now and then.
Rotary UPS are only good for a few seconds, usually enough time to start a generator without having power interuption... when designing a system it's cost vs tolerable power outage.. and cost of statuc ups vs a rotary ups.. rotary really doesn't come into play til your into the megawatt range, but for some applications as small as 400kva
in a consumer product, less than 1% of houses have Generators, and .0001% of them have a need less than 5-10 minyutes of down time, and $100 USD at electronics store for a Battery UPS would cover the need for 99.99999% of that 0.0001% that need that kinda uptime :)
Yes, that is exactly the way we have been looking at this flywheel stuffs. But I'm awfully interested in directing motion into mass using all kinds of tricks.
I had this fantastic idea for a self powered elevator,
The system will utilise artificial intelligence and a system of electronic doors to create a hamster track, it will then refuse to transport X overweight passengers per day. Those overweight people will then have to walk up using the stairs. Moving downstairs they are allowed to take the elevator again which effectively energises the system proportional to the persons exercise needs.
Because of the ingniueity of the AI hamster track system the heavy people will never know there actually was an elevator until they climb the stairs.
In the unique case of big persons complaints we can always blame it on the lack of power generated by our self powered elevator. It just wouldn't work if we would allow them on. :D
If that doesn't convince you of my flywheelosophy I don't know what will. lol
Quote
From a product point of view: As long as it has a windmill component we can put all the overunity machines in the flywheel we like, and no one will complain about it. But personally I would be interested in seeing a newman motor running on a dead battery spin up a flywheel. It would be cool to see how much mass such motor can keep up to speed for next to no amps.
if a newman motor could start a big flywheel with little energy, there would be no need to use a flywheel :)[/quote] Oh, but there are plenty of super efficient motors that have little or no torque. They don't even have to be working self-energisers. I just like to think it takes less torque to keep a flywheel spinning as it takes to speed it up. Am I wrong in that assumption?
QuoteAbout David Hamel, you mention balancing the flywheel was a problem but I think a slight unbalance and a bit of freedom to wobble combined with a ring of repulsive magnets around the rim could actually make use of the wobble by bouncing it back inwards.
hamelarian aquamagnetic bearings ::)
give it a try.. but that is alot of energy pushing on the structure to mount it... [/quote]
But if it's rolling in water already, then it needs 2 horizontal magnets only?
A pendulum swings much faster if you stick a magnet under it. Do you have an idea why this would be any different for flywheels? Will this decrease the amount of energy we can store in it or increase it?
I'm currently experimenting with torsion pendulums and governors suspended therefrom. Spins for hours, most incredible. :-)
http://groups.physics.umn.edu/demo/waves/movies/3A1030.mov
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 04:45:12 PM
A pendulum swings much faster if you stick a magnet under it. Do you have an idea why this would be any different for flywheels?
In a word, magnetic flux gradient.
Okay... That's three words !
A pendulum is not balanced. It is, by its very nature, an unbalanced system.
If you had an unbalanced flywheel it would operate much the same way as a pendulum but then it wouldn't really be a flywheel, would it ?
A pendulum would swing faster in a higher gravity environment and slower in a low gravity environment (that's the results of a quick thought experiment, not something that I can quote as a known fact, however, I think you'll find that it is true, especially if a magnet below a ferrous pendulum makes it swing faster).
The same is not true of a flywheel because of balance.
A pendulum converts PE to KE on the downswing and KE to PE on the upswing.
Again, the same is not true of a flywheel unless it is unbalanced and oscillating like a pendulum.
C'mon Zero !! I'm hanging about to share in your moment of realisation...
I don't want to hear "You were right all along.", I want to hear "I understand."
I just want to know that you can finally see the whole forest instead of just a tree or two.
The RoadRunner..
1. http://elevadordobomjesus.vector21.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bom_Jesus_funicular
up/down-mass-flow
Niklaus Riggenbach rack-system
2. Prof. Wolfgang Priesemuth, big kinetic energy storage with fly-wheels
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE4312912&F=0
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=DE4301659&F=0
S
dL
Quote from: tinu on September 16, 2007, 02:55:08 AM
Hi all,
It?s been a long thread and, by now, it should be obvious that Campbell?s machine is not working. Not the slightest chance.
Are you kidding ?
I even have not yet seen the second video which was removed and
this weekend?s measurements of Ash and his team are not in yet...
Quote
@ Stefan,
Banning Hum again is not only the greatest insult to his person but it goes beyond that.
You may be empowered to ban him, Stefan, as others may be empowered to take the OU.com domain from you and shut the whole thing down. Abusive? Yes, exactly my point.
Tinu
You are comparing apples with oranges.
You probably did not see the posting, where Humbugger made fun of Gaby de Wilde (it is now deleted)
and even posted Gaby?s real picture without permission into the thread and putting it
beneath some drunken guys pics and making fun of Gaby.
I can not accept these kind of users over here harrassing this way other users and he
already had a prior warning with his abusive postings.
G'day Stefan,
I did not see the post you are referring to. Knowing this now I agree with you, this kind of behaviour is out of order. You were right in banning him from posting.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 16, 2007, 06:31:08 PMYou probably did not see the posting, where Humbugger made fun of Gaby de Wilde (it is now deleted)
and even posted Gaby?s real picture without permission into the thread and putting it
beneath some drunken guys pics and making fun of Gaby.
I can not accept sthese kind of users over here harrassing this way other users and he
already had a prior warning with his abusive postings.
Admittedly, I too jumped to the conclusion that it was Hum who was being harassed because I didn't see that post either. I apologise to you, Stefan.
However, I'd suggest that there is a lesson to be learned for you.
Allowing snide, underhanded comments from people like Ash, yet cleaning up posts from people like Hum doesn't help your case and makes you appear very biased. I know it's real hard to maintain that fine balance and it's easy to mess up... Just look at the flack that you take when you do.
An internet forum is almost an historic account. When you remove posts and someone comes along later and reads that account, they get a distorted view of the events and jump to the wrong conclusions. That's exactly what I did. I jumped to the wrong conclusions.
The RoadRunner..
Okay, just let us all have some patience,
until all the data is in, which is not yet.
So please don?t make up your mind yet, until
we have the new measurements via the RV setup.
This way we can also see, how good this RV drive setup really is.
I hope this time a real good measurement is done which will
be also documented via video.
I am also looking forward to see some videos of this RV setup
charging back the batteries via this neo switcher circuit.
It takes time to compile the data on these measurements
and make a videocompilation to document it all.
So as these RV researchers probably are still working on
their fine tuning, they did not yet have time to make
the right documention yet.
So please give them some time and be patient
and do in the meantime your own experiments
with your own favourite OU toys...
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 16, 2007, 05:53:25 PM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 04:45:12 PM
A pendulum swings much faster if you stick a magnet under it. Do you have an idea why this would be any different for flywheels?
In a word, magnetic flux gradient.
Okay... That's three words !
A pendulum is not balanced. It is, by its very nature, an unbalanced system.
If you had an unbalanced flywheel it would operate much the same way as a pendulum but then it wouldn't really be a flywheel, would it ?
A pendulum would swing faster in a higher gravity environment and slower in a low gravity environment (that's the results of a quick thought experiment, not something that I can quote as a known fact, however, I think you'll find that it is true, especially if a magnet below a ferrous pendulum makes it swing faster).
The same is not true of a flywheel because of balance.
A pendulum converts PE to KE on the downswing and KE to PE on the upswing.
Again, the same is not true of a flywheel unless it is unbalanced and oscillating like a pendulum.
The RoadRunner..
Dear RoadRunner,
Ms. Forever Yuen did the magnetic pendulum experiment which could be repeated readily. If the Pendulum bob were replaced by a magnet, the oscillation time will be faster if the magnet underneath attracts the Magnetic Bob. (or more oscillations per minute).
If the Manget underneath repels the Magnetic Bob, the oscillation time be slower (or less oscillations per minute).
You are right in saying that an
unbalanced flywheel behaves like a pendulum. The
uneven rotation is equivalent to pulsing.
This Pulsing Leads Out gravitational energy!Lawrence Tseung
Pulsing of an unbalanced flywheel or cylinder Leads Out gravitational energy.
Iear Stephan,
I am shocked and horrified at Humbuggers removal. There has been no evidence what so ever that the claims that Chas has made have been repeatable or supported by any evidence presented to date.
Humbugger may have lacked diplomicy, however he was experssing the views of the silent majority. I spend my professional life travelling the world, testing OU and other claims and I feel Humbugger brought logical arguments and sensible suggestions of how to test the claims of this device. All I have seen from you and a couple of others, is how to bend the data to suit the result you want to see,,,rather than analysing the data objectively.
This has done your credability a lot of damage.
I openly support and encourage people like Chas to continue their work...however one must always be honest firstly with themselves, and others. Without data being repeatable of independently confirmed..it is of no value.
I am involved in two projects now..one is a self running magnetic motor and the other is emissions and fuel economy technology. Before going public these projects and the people involved are testing, checking data and above all making sure their information is correct, repeatable and validated independently. I grow tired of seeing the endless promotion of claims in forums like this...only to be dissapointed because more emphasis was placed on the sensationalism rather than the facts. Look at the endless list of projects here...none have collected your prize and none have had any value in solving the worlds energy crisis.
However the site is useful for encouraging people to share info, inspire others and introduce people of similar interests.
The freedom of speach, logic must always be defended. Your type of censorship shows bias and scares the hell out of me.
I was censored by you over 12 months ago just for asking questions (in a polite way) in another topic. Please re-enstae Humbugger.
I await paitiently for the latest results and video....I will hoopefully fill up the void created by humbuggers absence and give an objective, unbiased view of what is presented, using scientific principles and logic.
Kind Regards
Mark
G'day all,
Quote from: ltseung888 on September 16, 2007, 08:53:30 PM
Dear RoadRunner,
Ms. Forever Yuen did the magnetic pendulum experiment which could be repeated readily. If the Pendulum bob were replaced by a magnet, the oscillation time will be faster if the magnet underneath attracts the Magnetic Bob. (or more oscillations per minute).
If the Manget underneath repels the Magnetic Bob, the oscillation time be slower (or less oscillations per minute).
You are right in saying that an unbalanced flywheel behaves like a pendulum. The uneven rotation is equivalent to pulsing. This Pulsing Leads Out gravitational energy!
Lawrence Tseung
Pulsing of an unbalanced flywheel or cylinder Leads Out gravitational energy.
You are talking rubbish again Lawrence.
A magnet placed under a ferrous pendulum bob will take energy out of the bob whether in attracting or repelling mode. It will not slow down the rate of oscillation as the frequency is determined by the length of the pendulum, nothing else. It will however shorten the length of swing.
As to gravitational energy being "Lead Out" of the system in an oscillating mass that is utter crap.
Why don't you make a pendulum and observe what it does instead of pontificating this sort of nonsense.
I think you post this stuff only to make fun of people and I think this time you gave yourself away "Ms. Forever Yuen" ? Are you for real. Last time I checked Ms Forever was aging rapidly!
Hans von Lieven
here it is monday, and no word from Ash?
Quote from: markdansie on September 16, 2007, 09:00:55 PM
Iear Stephan,
I am shocked and horrified at Humbuggers removal. There has been no evidence what so ever that the claims that Chas has made have been repeatable or supported by any evidence presented to date.
Humbugger may have lacked diplomicy, however he was experssing the views of the silent majority. I spend my professional life travelling the world, testing OU and other claims and I feel Humbugger brought logical arguments and sensible suggestions of how to test the claims of this device. All I have seen from you and a couple of others, is how to bend the data to suit the result you want to see,,,rather than analysing the data objectively.
This has done your credability a lot of damage.
I openly support and encourage people like Chas to continue their work...however one must always be honest firstly with themselves, and others. Without data being repeatable of independently confirmed..it is of no value.
I am involved in two projects now..one is a self running magnetic motor and the other is emissions and fuel economy technology. Before going public these projects and the people involved are testing, checking data and above all making sure their information is correct, repeatable and validated independently. I grow tired of seeing the endless promotion of claims in forums like this...only to be dissapointed because more emphasis was placed on the sensationalism rather than the facts. Look at the endless list of projects here...none have collected your prize and none have had any value in solving the worlds energy crisis.
However the site is useful for encouraging people to share info, inspire others and introduce people of similar interests.
The freedom of speach, logic must always be defended. Your type of censorship shows bias and scares the hell out of me.
I was censored by you over 12 months ago just for asking questions (in a polite way) in another topic. Please re-enstae Humbugger.
I await paitiently for the latest results and video....I will hoopefully fill up the void created by humbuggers absence and give an objective, unbiased view of what is presented, using scientific principles and logic.
Kind Regards
Mark
Hi Mark and Stephan,
I too am sorry to see a banning and would prefer to see it used very rarely and only for very serious, repeated infractions. Perhaps just only deleting the post would have been more appropriate in this case, since @hum brought very detailed, educational and insightful hard facts (as do others) to light on many diffferent devices. He used a bold method at times, but presented a good factual argument usually and presented interesting posts with valid technical analysis. I do support freedom of speech, but also understand posting a picture of someone else may not be the best thing to do if one's intention is to stay on topic with the purpose of posting a technical analysis. I support the delete of the message that was found offensive, but would avoid an outright ban of @hum, taking into consideration the insightful, hard fact style of posts to keep things honest and believable out there.
I would suggest a common sense self imposed limit or restraint to how many posts a person is making per day, so as to allow others to share their input as well to achieve the 'balance' that Stephan spoke of. (For both Skeptic or Optimistic poster).
@Mark,
I think that true overunity devices must have an area of demonstratable gain somewhere in the system, that doesn't have to be paid back or can be extracted, to have a chance at becoming a device that can take advantage of such gain and harvest it for use.
I agree that all of the evidence should be known about a device, before a correct conclusion can be made, presenting all the facts clearly.
Sounds like your current projects are keeping you pretty busy for now. Travel safely; nice first analysis. You may have your hands full, trying to fill in for @hum... ;)
@Stephan,
I enjoy the overunity forum, reading and keeping up to date with what is happening. A very nice forum. Thanks!
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 16, 2007, 09:17:08 PMA magnet placed under a magnetic pendulum bob will take energy out of the bob whether in attracting or repelling mode. It will not slow down the rate of oscillation as the frequency is determined by the length of the pendulum, nothing else. It will however shorten the length of swing.
Welllllllll I'll be jiggered, stuffed with peppers and baked at gas-mark 4 !!!
There's another example of how 'thought experiments' can lead one astray.
I could absolutely support the idea that a magnet placed under a ferrous bob would increase the speed of the swing (decrease the period) - No claims of extra energy - Just that it would decrease the period.
... So... I went and did the real-world experiment.
I hung a steel bolt from a piece of thread, suspended in my doorway and watched it swing.
Then I taped a neo to the floor and watched the swing.
The ONLY effect on the swing was that the magnet sucked energy out of the oscillation.
It brought the swing to a stop much faster than without the magnet but it did not alter the period in any way that I could detect.
Hans appears to be absolutely correct according to the results of my experimentation.
It seems that a magnet underneath a ferrous bob
does not increase the overall speed of the swing, maybe until the very last few oscillations where the bob never leaves the immediate vicinity of the magnet.. and I mean the very last few... It's no longer a pendulum, it's a piece of ferrous metal straining on a piece of thread to get at the magnet which is pulling at it.
Why don't we have unlimited free energy ? It's got nothing to do with the supposed 'Authoritarian Suppression', it's because those who are chasing the FE dream haven't got the sense to rid themselves of voodoo and bad-science by doing some simple experiments. They'd rather fudge the data to make it look like they've found something interesting.
Bessler wheels and SMOT ramps have been around for a long time and scientists were laughing at them 100s of years ago... And now some goon in Aus is credited with
inventing an 'over-unity toy' and countless other goons are claiming that the SMOT works... if only they could get around that nasty friction issue... hmmmmmmm....
I recently read one discussion where the guy playing with a SMOT was 'calculating' the 'output' of the SMOT to the millijoule and claiming OU but absolutely refused to acknowledge the energy he was using to 'seed' the SMOT by placing the ball in the field (I'm sure there are countless discussions of this nature littered all over the internet and other media).
SMOTs and Bessler Wheels work..
...But only in the realm of thought experimentation. Bring them into the real world and for some strange reason, they fail.
I came here with hope. A believer that those brave and diligent pioneers who devote their time, energy and money to research and experimentation would find the route to free energy.
After spending a few days reading sites like this one... I think I might just as well abandon all hope, go and see my local witch-doctor and ask him to cast bones for me.
On the upside... I have a few surplus kilos of fairy-dust which has the miraculous property of aligning the domains of figmentium in a Bedini SSG thereby increasing the output by more than 500%.
It looks and tastes like salt, but it works great.
If anyone wants some of my OU enhancement powder, you can send me the money via Western Union.
*walks away sobbing gently*
The RoadRunner..
Hi Guys sorry again for the delay :-\ we shot 3 videos, the most practical will be our Video presentation i think showing his Gravity wheel at the R and D stage, including Lawrence's, milcoviks and Bob mary's prototype, plus many more issues which i feel is practical to utilize (support for open source engineers etc)given the amount of publicity Chas' has generated.
Guys even if his motor flywheel wont work, and or his Gravity wheel is at an R and D stage and can/can not work.
The fact is you did well to handle the situation did a public service by investigation, measurement and or support. So i would like to say you guys have done exceptionally well to increase the R and D effort and also keep the potential alive.
In your [panacea] video presentation
We used the publicity about 'Free energy' to show important issues and critical ways to make sure systems are disclosed, and educated, and what is needed to be developed so we can create a center, for the NEC/you guys and also provide a research and development center so these systems be secure in the PUBLIC EYE.
okay., our presentation will be edited and done at the end of the week.
The other two video should be done tonight and tomorrow.
Priority- Duty cycle tests
Then Chas explanation statement to YOU and all.
Your Panacea production
Tonight i expect the duty cycle tests we did to be up on Google, let me first say thanks to the TWO who brought their watt hour meters and confirmed the tests for all.
Duty cycle test results. [in short good and bad]
You guys will need to make up your minds if there is still something to salvage:
In our amp meters[digital not watt hour meters] pumped into the 240volt grid, Chas's original motor pulled 6 amps The RV [I AM NEVER WRONG ABOUT THE RV SO FAR) pulled 3 amps input [as i said it would]
The video will show a watt hour and our digital amp meters test, our digital amp meters show myself pulsing out 2 saws, for 4 seconds on (put a stop watch on the video) and one second off as per Stefans request. Figures went negative [10 out 3 in ruffly], but the voltage most likely dropped.
Watch the video, a real load was pulsed and cut wood which drew around 10 amps [4 sec on and one off], RV stayed around 3 amps. How ever, as an engineer pointed out the voltage on the ALT Dropped, so would this 4 seconds of ten amps still be usable in a useful applicaiton, you guys will have to decide, we have all the details now to reproduce his system.
Watt hour meters test, show in run time after it took me along time to CHARGE up the fly wheel from the RV, that the run time tests and even pulse tests on the watt hour meters show no OU.
Total watt hour power consumed from the first tests, showed more energy to charge up the flywheel and pulse it out [total power consumed]. Check out the video. Now i am saying this as we did this on our amp meter and connected the watt hour meter, the actual watt hour meter test with out our amp meters showed similar figures of input and out put so please watch the video and make up your own mind.
Chas has put new stuff on his wheel and continues to try and perfect his gravity wheel.
Any request for his wheel (we are still to load all his wheel with all the balls for Stefan)
Just let me know.
Videos will be up tonight guys.
PS it seems Hummbugger went over to the EVGRAY list and tried his non building skeptical attitude, and is about to be banned from there too, this guy should get a job for an OIL company if he hasn't already.
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 16, 2007, 11:39:17 PM
... So... I went and did the real-world experiment.
I hung a steel bolt from a piece of thread, suspended in my doorway and watched it swing.
Then I taped a neo to the floor and watched the swing.
The ONLY effect on the swing was that the magnet sucked energy out of the oscillation.
It brought the swing to a stop much faster than without the magnet but it did not alter the period in any way that I could detect.
The RoadRunner..
Dear RoadRunner,
Please read my post carefully. You are supposed to have
a magnet as your pendulum bob. A disc shaped with a hole in the middle is best. You can use other non magnetic material to help to hold it in place. Then
use a stop watch to time the number of oscillations in 1 minute. Repeat that three times to get the average.
The three separate tests are:
(1) Time the number of oscillations with the
magnetic bob
alone - repeat three times to get the average.
(2) Place another magnet below the magnetic bob, making sure the action between the two magnets is
attraction. (below can be a few centimeters on the floor but make sure the force of attraction is noticeable). Repeat three times to get the average.
(3) Repeat (2) making sure the action between the two magnets is
replusion.
The
Ms. Forever Yuen result was
(1) 100 oscillations per minute
(2) 105 oscillations per minute
(3) 95 oscillatiions per minute.
The actual number for your test will depend on the
length of the string and the
strength of the magnets. Please do the above Forever Yuen experiment and tell us the result.
Lawrence Tseung
Misread experiments Leads Out stronger Pulses from the Inventors
ltseung888 is both right and wrong here..
first of all this is not a pendulum. its a magnet on a string over an opposing magnet.
but what he is saying about its function is correct.
Quote from: ltseung888 on September 17, 2007, 12:34:09 AMDear RoadRunner,
Please read my post carefully. You are supposed to have a magnet as your pendulum bob...
...Please do the above Forever Yuen experiment and tell us the result.
Ni hao, Tseung Xiansheng,
I cannot see how having a magnet as the bob will make any difference, but of course, it would be remiss of me to neglect to do the experiment as described.
I just want to find a piece of thread which is not quite so elastic as the one I am using.
My neos are stretching the thread at bottom-dead-centre and ending the experiment prematurely.
Once I have managed to locate some suitable thread, I will perform the experiment once more as per your directions and report my results.
The RoadRunner..
i used monofilament (30 lb test fishing line), didnt stretch much at all
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 03:05:41 PM
I guess we are all cheap and disabled in our own perverted ways. Maybe we should all patch in and build the worlds biggest smot device? One of the drawbacks of the smot is that the height of the ramp is limited by the size of the ball? lol?
If we bother him enough I bet we can get Finsrud himself to build it for us. Then we get Richard Brandston to roll the balls up the ramp. Attaching a wheel to our big smot should be easy for us profesional free energy research nerds. We have all the arguments insertion height complications right here in the topic already.
I think 50 Euros per participant would be good to get rid of this cheap feeling. It will bring us closer together like in a cult.
But it would still take a lot of people to buy our own custom made Finstrud-mobile.
I even made a construction drawing.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.go-here.nl%2Fchas-is-cool.png&hash=09641d3bf95e3f1bcb97a5cfca153255b4fd0ddf)
I think it's very artistic already? no?
But doesn't this fix the complications with Chas device already?
There could be a second SMOT at the lower end?
Hi Gaby,
I still like your idea very much with the integrated SMOT ramp,
as in this case you don?t need to fiddle with the "blue hole", but just let the ball
drop into the wheel after the ramp.
But I think your spiral inward thing is not a good idea,
as it makes the torque arm smaller and thus
deminishes the useable torque to lift the other balls.
But Chas should really look into this design, if he
wants to get his big wheel working.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: markdansie on September 16, 2007, 09:00:55 PM
Iear Stephan,
I am shocked and horrified at Humbuggers removal.
Mark
Hi Mark and all,
please reread my decision over here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg50036.html#msg50036
I was also asked privately by some other users to ban him,
cause he was too abusive.
I don?t like to ban people from over here,
but sometimes if some people over here use
this space to make up their own agenda
and try to harrass other people, it is just too much.
And he was warned already before,
but did continue.
Hope you understand.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: I am still pointing out myself measurement
errors and wrong claims, so this over here is
no dreamland about overunity and free energy,
but a real scientific research forum.
But sometimes you have to give the inventors
some time to put all their
documentation together and we have to be patient.
Aaaaaarghghghg !!!
I just broke a neo !!!
I hate it when that happens.
This is a new set of neos too !! I've only had them a few days. They seem to be a lot stronger than previous sets. The darned thing jumped off the floor before I could tape it down and shattered itself on the one I was using as a bob !!!
The RoadRunner..
A word of caution when doing these experiments with attracting polarities:::
secure both magnets so that they do not fly towards one another!!!
Dear Ash,
thanks for your efforts in filming.
I was trying to make sense of your post.
perhaps a couple of questions will clarify things for me so i can report back to the NEC.
1. Was there any evidence of OU ?
2. Did any of the tests (pulse and non pulse) run for any longer for a few seconds? It is important to do so so any energy that might be stored in the fly wheel is not confused as anything else other than stored energy.
3. Was there any evidence that supported Chas's previous claims (statements on TV interview and posts here) re power in power out? If not...why is this not repeatable?
By asking questions like this I am not attacking you or Chas. Its just important that all technology is tested on a level playing field.
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 17, 2007, 03:14:38 AM
A word of caution when doing these experiments with attracting polarities:::
secure both magnets so that they do not fly towards one another!!!
Yes, yes, yes. I know, I'm a dumbass, completely deserving of ridicule !!!
Well, I attempted to check the field-strength of the neos with my Tricorder as it's the only gauss-meter I have to hand at the moment... No... I'm not joking... or deluded !!! However, I think the Tricorder doesn't handle static fields very well, it handles fluctuating fields but static fields don't seem to register properly. I think it has something to do with the type of hall-effect tranny it uses... I was hoping to report the strength of the magnets in use but that idea went to the wind !!
Distance between magnets = 5cm
Stationary magnet placed at bottom-dead-centre (I assume that's where it's supposed to be).
The bob was released from the same point each time. (approx 85 deg from BDC)
I was obtaining a consistent 42 (and a bit) swings.
Without magnet = 42 and a bit.
Magnets in attraction = 42 and a bit.
Magnets in repulsion = 42 and a bit.
The only differences were that with the magnet, the pendulum would sometimes go off course, bounce into something (usually the nearby armchair) and void that run.
and...
That with the magnets in attraction, the swinging would stop much sooner.
I have no reason to suspect that two (or more) people are lying to me so the fact that we are obtaining conflicting results is interesting.
I need to go and do some other things for a while but I intend to come back to this.
My intermediate hypothesis is that I am using a much longer pendulum than Forever Yuen (as evidenced by her count of ~100 and my count of ~40 over a minute) and this may have some bearing on the results. My magnets are likely to be in proximity for a smaller proportion of the entire swing than hers and this may cause the differences in runs to be less dramatic.
After all... 42 and a bit each run... That 'bit' is certainly not a complete swing but it is unmeasured.
It could be a big bit or a small bit and without measurement, the differences could be less than my margin for error.
Results:
Inconclusive - Further experimentation needed.
(Attached picture - Attempting to measure the field-strength of the neo - before it comitted suicide)
The RoadRunner..
Dear Ash,
Welcome back. I have updated the campbell document at
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48484.html#msg48484
to version 1.5. I included some highlights of our meetings with the Chinese Officials from 3 Cities. I am reproducing the latest edit from today here.
Latest Edit on September 17, 2006:
Expert A: ?I want to let you know that we have invested some seed money in your friend Sun et al. They have a working Pulse Motor Prototype. It cannot produce CoP greater than 1.0 yet. However, we feel that it has more potential than the Chas Campbell Device.?
Tseung: ?I know. Sun called me. He is providing you a prototype that can be driven from a battery or from a solar panel. The prototype had two Drive Coils at present. They intend to fill in the whole disc with at least Eight Drive/Pickup Coils. That could simulate the Newman and Bedini setup with the same Coil used for Drive and Pickup. They also plan to add the programming elements?
Expert A: ?Nothing escapes you in this Cosmic Energy Machine Development. We have not rejected the Chas Campbell Project yet. Funding and Support for him from our City is still possible. We want him to have the credit. International Cooperation will raise the status of our City. As you had repeated many times, let others shine.?
Lawrence Tseung
Talk of Pulse Motor Leads Out seed money for that project.
here is the reasoning behind this, in reuplsion mode the magnet has to swing around in a circular fashion.
in attracting mode the magnet is allowed to swing back and forth, shorter path less time.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 17, 2007, 04:49:19 AM
here is the reasoning behind this, in reuplsion mode the magnet has to swing around in a circular fashion.
in attracting mode the magnet is allowed to swing back and forth, shorter path less time.
I would certainly agree with your reasoning, but that would not explain a difference between 'attraction' and 'no magnet' because both swings
should take the same path.
The comparison which really interests me is the comparison between 'no magnet' and 'attraction'.
Anyway, this is somewhat offtopic as it has drifted beyond the realms of Chas Campbell's rotating pool-table.
If there's a thread where this magnet-pendulum idea has been discussed, we can take it there.
The RoadRunner..
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 04:28:34 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 17, 2007, 03:14:38 AM
A word of caution when doing these experiments with attracting polarities:::
secure both magnets so that they do not fly towards one another!!!
Distance between magnets = 5cm
Stationary magnet placed at bottom-dead-centre (I assume that's where it's supposed to be).
The bob was released from the same point each time. (approx 85 deg from BDC)
I was obtaining a consistent 42 (and a bit) swings.
Without magnet = 42 and a bit.
Magnets in attraction = 42 and a bit.
Magnets in repulsion = 42 and a bit.
The only differences were that with the magnet, the pendulum would sometimes go off course, bounce into something (usually the nearby armchair) and void that run.
and...
That with the magnets in attraction, the swinging would stop much sooner.
I have no reason to suspect that two (or more) people are lying to me so the fact that we are obtaining conflicting results is interesting.
I need to go and do some other things for a while but I intend to come back to this.
My intermediate hypothesis is that I am using a much longer pendulum than Forever Yuen (as evidenced by her count of ~100 and my count of ~40 over a minute) and this may have some bearing on the results. My magnets are likely to be in proximity for a smaller proportion of the entire swing than hers and this may cause the differences in runs to be less dramatic.
After all... 42 and a bit each run... That 'bit' is certainly not a complete swing but it is unmeasured.
It could be a big bit or a small bit and without measurement, the differences could be less than my margin for error.
Results:
Inconclusive - Further experimentation needed.
The RoadRunner..
Dear RoadRunner,
Try to use
shorter length (approximately 30 cm). Forever Yuen used disc magnets with hole in the middle
costing USD0.5. I believe your magnets are much stronger. The magnetic attraction or repulsion do not need to be too strong. If the magnetic bob moves slightly at a distance of about 5 cm, the force is sufficient.
The shorter string and keeping the pendulum away from other objects will help. Since you are using fishing lines, you can put a fishing pole on top of two Chairs. The Chairs can be one or two meters apart. There should not be other objects (especially magnetic or iron) to upset the experiment. (I believe Forever used non-stretchable strings.)
I shall wait for
you and others to repeat the experiment. If the results were still inconclusive, I would ask Ms. Forever Yuen
to repeat and video the experiment next Sunday (or during her holidays).
Quote
Anyway, this is somewhat offtopic as it has drifted beyond the realms of Chas Campbell's rotating pool-table.
If there's a thread where this magnet-pendulum idea has been discussed, we can take it there.
Good Idea. We can continue at my Lee-Tseung Theory thread at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg49950.html#msg49950
Lawrence Tseung
Friendly Experimenters Lead Out lower Pulse Rate for Tseung.
Quote from: ltseung888 on September 17, 2007, 05:18:17 AMGood Idea. We can continue at my Lee-Tseung Theory thread at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg49950.html#msg49950
Continued there...
The RoadRunner..
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 17, 2007, 02:40:55 AM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 03:05:41 PM
I guess we are all cheap and disabled in our own perverted ways. Maybe we should all patch in and build the worlds biggest smot device? One of the drawbacks of the smot is that the height of the ramp is limited by the size of the ball? lol?
If we bother him enough I bet we can get Finsrud himself to build it for us. Then we get Richard Brandston to roll the balls up the ramp. Attaching a wheel to our big smot should be easy for us profesional free energy research nerds. We have all the arguments insertion height complications right here in the topic already.
I think 50 Euros per participant would be good to get rid of this cheap feeling. It will bring us closer together like in a cult.
But it would still take a lot of people to buy our own custom made Finstrud-mobile.
I even made a construction drawing.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.go-here.nl%2Fchas-is-cool.png&hash=09641d3bf95e3f1bcb97a5cfca153255b4fd0ddf)
I think it's very artistic already? no?
But doesn't this fix the complications with Chas device already?
There could be a second SMOT at the lower end?
Hi Gaby,
I still like your idea very much with the integrated SMOT ramp,
as in this case you don?t need to fiddle with the "blue hole", but just let the ball
drop into the wheel after the ramp.
But I think your spiral inward thing is not a good idea,
as it makes the torque arm smaller and thus
deminishes the useable torque to lift the other balls.
Lets say there are 4 kinds of torque:
1- Ball on inside
2- Ball on outside
3- Ball moving towards axle (while still on the wheel)
4- ball moving towards rim (while still on the wheel)
Here 2 obviously makes more momentum as 1. This was the whole discovery. But in 3 like a ballerina pulling in her arms the rpms will go up even further as in 2. Just like 4 will slow the wheel down most dramatically. You must know what a governor is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)
When accelerated the mass moves outwards making it rotate at a steady speed. Pulling mass inwards on a wheel will accelerate it.
I guess the big question is: where are all the closed loop smot devices? hummm
I thought this video makes Chas innovation a bit more obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e77eOgylsBc
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 10:30:07 AM
I guess the big question is: where are all the closed loop smot devices? hummm
I think the problem we will run into is that the SMOT robs the ball of more of its gravitational force after the ball drops off the SMOT than the benefit gained from elevating the ball. This is why there are no closed loop SMOTs yet.
I'm sorry, but calling this abomination a SMOT is a misnomer and lends credence to the goon who repopularised it, claiming that he invented it.
I propose that it should, henceforth, be known as the SMUT.
The RoadRunner..
Quote from: shruggedatlas on September 17, 2007, 11:00:38 AM
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 10:30:07 AM
I guess the big question is: where are all the closed loop smot devices? hummm
I think the problem we will run into is that the SMOT robs the ball of more of its gravitational force after the ball drops off the SMOT than the benefit gained from elevating the ball. This is why there are no closed loop SMOTs yet.
Ah, so you are trying to say an assumption is enough? I don't agree, I think the only valid way of coming to that conclusion is by building every possible configuration. You try base some final conclusion on a hand full of hobby attempts. I think it's most fraudulent to try to pass of such assumption as a fact.
In the real world it's just a ball, 2 chunks of wood, a rail and 2 magnets. If the researcher cant accomplish to manufacture such huge engineering effort it says a lot about his or her final conclusions about it. Looking at things from the angle of this kind of researcher, building a closed loop smot is just about equally complicated as building a space ship.
Peeps seem to have made it a priority to laugh and point at anyone merely discussing the SMOT.
This you can base good conclusions upon. No one has been able to disprove the smot making free energy. After thousands of
"it's probably nothing"'s still not one functional explanation has arrived to my armchair capable of disproving the effect.
We will call it machine A
We place an object on a flat surface.
We slowly move machine A towards the object.
The object is now sucked into machine A and spewed out at it's other end.
Where is the spewing potential coming from?
Did I note that we can do this an infinite number of times? :D
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 01:23:09 PM
In the real world it's just a ball, 2 chunks of wood, a rail and 2 magnets. If the researcher cant accomplish to manufacture such huge engineering effort it says a lot about his or her final conclusions about it. Looking at things from the angle of this kind of researcher, building a closed loop smot is just about equally complicated as building a space ship.
I would submit that it is more complicated than building a space ship. With a spaceship, the engineer has the luxury of designing a device that violates no known laws of physics. Not so with a closed loop SMOT.
Quote
Did I note that we can do this an infinite number of times? :D
That's the problem, it can only do it once. I can say the same thing about a simple ramp. I slide the ball towards a ramp, it sucks it in and then spits it out at the bottom with additional energy.
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 01:23:09 PMI think it's most fraudulent to try to pass of such assumption as a fact.
I think it's fraudulent to refer to this contraption as an 'OVER-unity' toy.
If I built a vehicle and advertised it as a 'water-powered automobile' when in fact, it ran on gasoline... That's fraudulent. If I created a black box and said 'this is an energy-saver', yet it had no possible means of saving anyone any energy... That's fraudulent.
If I said, "This device creates more energy than it requires to make it work" and in fact, it used more than it output... That's fraudulent. Hence I will refuse to use the term SMOT... Because it clearly isn't. It's a SMUT.
QuotePeeps seem to have made it a priority to laugh and point at anyone merely discussing the SMOT.
Not me... Discuss it all you like... Try to find an application for pulling a steel ball up a slope with magnets... Hey... That's not too far from a maglev... I'm not saying that it doesn't have uses or applications... Or even amusement value... But SMOT, it ain't.... and it really narks me when someone else claims that they invented something when they didn't.
I'm going to attach a picture at the end of this post. I remember this picture from when I was young.
I couldn't understand at that age, why it would not work. I had to experiment and play with magnets to understand why the concept would never work... I learned something... But I never once tried to suggest that it was a perpetual motion machine (I hadn't heard the term 'Over-Unity' at that age) after understanding how it functions in the real world. If I had... I'd have been most deserving of any ridicule which came my way.
QuoteNo one has been able to disprove the smot making free energy.
No-one has been able to disprove the existence of the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... No-one's been able to prove that my bike can't fly...
Here's the thing... It is not possible to prove the non-existence of something. It is only possible to prove the existence of something. I can give you lots of evidence to suggest that something does not exist, but I cannot prove it. However, if something DOES exist, then proof is absolute. Evidence of non-existence is only applicable to the results of that investigation... But now we're heading into the realms of philosophy rather than science.
Okay... Mathematically... We know that Chas Campbell has, in all probability, built nothing more than a curiosity which will never yield more out than in. However... Even though we can demonstrate this with models and maths, there is still the possibility that he may come up with the very loophole which will make something about one of his machines work... And that hope keeps him going. He doesn't give up because no-one can prove to him that his machines won't work. Good on him. As I've said before, it's people like that who will find the answers... and if they don't, they learn loads of interesting stuff on the way... But... Once he's PROVEN that his machine (in whatever form) gives more out than in... End of story... It's proven.
Does that make sense ?
"Here's a machine I am working on to make free energy.", will never earn ridicule from me.
"Here's a machine which makes free energy." (when it clearly doesn't)... Well, that's a different story.
People who make that claim fraudulently deserve much worse than ridicule because they sour the milk for everyone else. When someone really does manage to create something remarkable what does Joe Public say ??? "Yeah... Heard it all before !!! Pull the other one, it's got bells on !"
QuoteDid I note that we can do this an infinite number of times? :D
You can do it for as long as you are willing to put in more energy than you get out.
Unless you have a practical demonstration that proves otherwise. So far, no-one has managed to demonstrate over-unity from a steel ball and a magnetic ramp.
I am exceedingly impressed by Finrud's device. It's a masterpiece.
I'm also impressed by the fact that he is careful not to claim 'more out than in'.
I'm impressed by the fact that it runs so well. It's beautifully engineered and it's probably the closest thing I've ever seen to 'perpetual motion' barring the motion of the celestial bodies in our Universe.
When someone can get a steel ball and a magnet ramp to operate for as long as that, then they have a chance at the 'holy grail' of 'perpetual motion' but if Finsrud pushed his steel ball and it went round the track once only, to call it a perpetual motion machine would be ludicrous. As ludicrous as the misnomer 'SMOT'. Greg Watson should be dragged out and liberally beaten with a large wet fish for propagating
bad-science and calling his repopularisation of this device a SMOT instead of a SMUT.
The RoadRunner..
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 02:28:55 PM
I'm going to attach a picture at the end of this post. I remember this picture from when I was young.
I couldn't understand at that age, why it would not work.
Like so many other inventors, a child hood dream. The only difference is that you spend years and years trying to kill it. The effort at destroying something is most unworthy in the first place.
QuoteI had to experiment and play with magnets to understand why the concept would never work...
Yes, you will have to play with magnet to understand why the concept works. The only difference here is that you now start your investigation trying to get something done. Your previous statement means you couldn't do it back then, this goes for you alone. The previous effort was towards disproving the workings without building it.
QuoteI learned something...
no, you lost something. Sorry...
QuoteBut I never once tried to suggest that it was a perpetual motion machine (I hadn't heard the term 'Over-Unity' at that age) after understanding how it functions in the real world.
You are confusing the real world with the world of physics. That world is not even close to the real thing.
QuoteIf I had... I'd have been most deserving of any ridicule which came my way.
Here I think your childhood frustration has grown up into a which burning ritual. :P
QuoteQuoteNo one has been able to disprove the smot making free energy.
It is not possible to prove the non-existence of something.
Look, an object accelerating from zero m/s up to any point above zero m/s has gained kinetic energy. Physics is 100% correct about this. I don't really care about the gravitational potential when it comes to denial of the workings of the smot.
You are just to explain where the kinetic energy comes from. It's not rolling down a slope, it has to come from some place. Where does it come from? You tell me? Or do you plan to deny the object moves faster after as before the interaction? Please be honest?
QuoteIt is only possible to prove the existence of something.
is there more or less kinetic energy before or after the interaction? I don't understand what you think to see in the device. Please explain.
Ball travels tough back box and accelerates. It departs the ramp with speed above zero. There is no way a static object is going to exit the device without gaining kinetic energy.
If a static object doesn't gain kinetic energy it's not going to move at all you see?
Not moving is very easy to spot. There is no doubt about this? There cant be?
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 05:53:08 PM
You are just to explain where the kinetic energy comes from. It's not rolling down a slope, it has to come from some place. Where does it come from? You tell me? Or do you plan to deny the object moves faster after as before the interaction? Please be honest?
I do not understand why you are stuck on this. To answer the question, the energy comes from the magnet. However, every ounce of kinetic energy given to the ball it is also taken away by the magnet upon exiting the ramp, so there is no net gain. If there was any excess energy at all, we would be able to make a circle of SMOTs. Alas, such is not the case.
What do you mean no netgain?
exit speed - zero = netgain
Energy from the magnet? No that cant be it, because it would have to give this energy back to the magnet before exiting.
It wouldn't have enough energy to exit if it was from the magnet.
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 17, 2007, 05:53:08 PMLike so many other inventors, a child hood dream. The only difference is that you spend years and years trying to kill it. The effort at destroying something is most unworthy in the first place.
That may be the way that you see it. It's not the way I see it. I've spent years 'chasing my dreams'.
Sometimes with success, sometimes without. What's most interesting (and beyond the scope of an internet forum) is how resonance and 'harmony' all fit into the picture.
I do agree that the effort spent in destroying something is unworthy. Destruction is mostly dischordant but sometimes destruction is necessary. We need to break down the mental blocks... As I can see you are attempting to do with me. I'm not going to tell you that it won't work. I appreciate your efforts and if you really find some mental blocks, please feel free to try to tear them down and widen my perspective, I will be all the better for it. I'm thick-skinned. I generally don't offend easily and I don't mind a little rough play as long as it is all in the right spirit.
But... I think you'll find I'm a little like Milkovic's nodding donkeys. You can hold my head down but my tail keeps a waggin' and sometimes when the sparks really fly, you might realise that the 'mental blocks' you thought were there are only an illusion... They're there to make me appear human.
Without them, I scare people so I have to 'wear the suit' and blend in until there's enough steam pressure in the boiler to open that valve and engage 'drive' !
QuoteQuoteI had to experiment and play with magnets to understand why the concept would never work...
Yes, you will have to play with magnet to understand why the concept works. The only difference here is that you now start your investigation trying to get something done. Your previous statement means you couldn't do it back then, this goes for you alone. The previous effort was towards disproving the workings without building it.
Errrrr... No.
I had to play with magnets to understand why the device depicted did not work. Back to the old 'thought experiments' again. As a kiddie, in my mind, that should have worked. My book said that it didn't work.
I didn't understand why my book should say that it wouldn't when in my mind, it would.
Only by playing with magnets and ball-bearings and other assorted bits of metal did I start to learn about field-strengths, gravity, potential and kinetic energy, polarities and so on.
I did stupid things like mount battery operated fans onto little carts with sails (like they do in the cartoons) to try to make my 'craft' move. Then when the thing did move, I had to spend time trying to work out why it moved.. Was it because of my fan pushing against the sail ? Was it because of the wind pushing against the sail ? Or was it because my fan was acting as an airscrew ?
I was an experimenter right from when I was young.
QuoteQuoteI learned something...
no, you lost something. Sorry...
I can see why you might say that and in some ways, I can agree...
I can agree in the context you mean, but I can expand on that and say that I lost some of my ignorance.
I lost some of my reliance on 'what I was told'. I don't simply take something for granted, I try it.
If you told me the sky was blue, I might go and check for myself. Not that I don't trust you, but 'blue' can mean a lot of things. Is it pale blue ? Dark blue ? vivid blue ? pastel ? blue with blue stripes ??
QuoteQuoteBut I never once tried to suggest that it was a perpetual motion machine (I hadn't heard the term 'Over-Unity' at that age) after understanding how it functions in the real world.
You are confusing the real world with the world of physics. That world is not even close to the real thing.
I beg to differ on that one.. That I am confusing the two, that is.
I am under no misconceptions that our Universe and the 'laws of physics' don't always tally.
Ask any scientist and they will likely tell you that cause precedes effect.
I know otherwise through repeated personal experience... That's just one example.
Again... I don't trust what I was taught by my teachers. I know they were only repeating what they were told. Education isn't about becoming smarter, it's about absorbing what you're told and repeating it all in an exam. You can get the answer right in an exam, but if that's not the answer the examiner wants, you'll be marked wrong. I've known for a long time that there is a difference.
QuoteQuoteIf I had... I'd have been most deserving of any ridicule which came my way.
Here I think your childhood frustration has grown up into a which burning ritual. :P
If I advocated burning 'witches'... I'd have to be first in the queue for the pyre !!!
You really do need to get to know me better to understand my perspective on all this.
But I don't hold it against you that you perceive me the way you do. It would probably take many years of brain-frying to get to the point where you're beginning to get a reasonably accurate picture of who I am and why I am.
QuoteLook, an object accelerating from zero m/s up to any point above zero m/s has gained kinetic energy.
No argument there.
QuoteYou are just to explain where the kinetic energy comes from. It's not rolling down a slope, it has to come from some place. Where does it come from? You tell me? Or do you plan to deny the object moves faster after as before the interaction? Please be honest?
I'm not so foolish as to try to deny that the ball isn't moving faster. of course it is.
To you or I (non-magnetic entities), that's an uphill gradient.
To a magnetic entity like a steel ball, that's a downhill gradient and the kinetic energy gained by that ball comes from the potential energy you imparted when you picked it up and held it at the top of that magnetic gradient. When you let it go, that gradient converts the PE to KE.
Again, I think that physics was completely right about this.
Quoteis there more or less kinetic energy before or after the interaction? I don't understand what you think to see in the device. Please explain.
Before the interaction and after the interaction, the amount of kinetic energy is the same (when the ball is at rest in it's 'home' position).
Immediately prior to entry into the ramp, being held there by your fingers, the KE = ~0 and the PE >0
At the very end of the ramp, before the ball falls back out, PE is approaching 0 as it's been converted to KE.
So, with the ball held still - High PE, zero KE.
Before the ball comes to rest (part way through the complete cycle, immediately after exiting the ramp), Low PE, high KE.
Correct by your understanding ?
QuoteBall travels tough back box and accelerates. It departs the ramp with speed above zero. There is no way a static object is going to exit the device without gaining kinetic energy.
No argument there.
Put fuel in your tank and your vehicle has high PE but it has no KE until it moves.
Unless it's on a hill or you're pushing it, it ain't gonna move without fuel.
No PE, no KE. Likewise with the ramp. If you don't give it the PE to start with, then you're sure as heck not going to get any KE at all and once the ball has come to rest back at the starting position, ready for you to pick it up and place it in the ramp again - No PE (not strictly true because it could fall off the table and convert PE to KE...)
QuoteIf a static object doesn't gain kinetic energy it's not going to move at all you see?
No argument from me.
If you don't give it PE to start with, you're not going to get KE from the ramp, are you ?
QuoteNot moving is very easy to spot. There is no doubt about this? There cant be?
Bubble... Meet pin.
You don't see trees growing, but we know they do.
It's very easy to spot that a tree doesn't grow... Isn't it ?
I look at that tree... I stare at it for hours and hours and hours... It hasn't grown one inch.
I look at it the next day... I still cannot see it moving... It's very easy to spot that it isn't growing...
Until my friend sets up a time-lapse camera and records the tree for a few weeks or months and shows me just how wrong I am.
Like I said... You can prove the existence of something but you CANNOT prove the non-existence of something.
Observing no movement (or no growth) is an attempt at proving the non-existence of movement and I can be satisfied that the tree isn't growing by measuring and watching.... Until my friend extends my range of available measurement with time-lapse and wowwwwww! How wrong I am. He just proved that the tree IS growing.
This little philosophical puzzle keeps arising time and time again in my life and every time I put it to the test, I try my hardest to find the loop-hole... I've never found one yet.... I cannot prove that there is no loophole.... But the moment you prove to me that there is one... The whole thing collapses.
I cannot prove to you that proving the non-existence of something is not possible because that's proving the non-existence of something and that's impossible..... arrhrhhghghghhghghhghghghghghghh !!!
The 'non-existence' issue arose a number of years ago from a discussion I was having with a friend and I cannot even remember how we arrived at the situation but he tried to prove the non-existence of something and we bashed the idea about for a while until I realised that it just wasn't possible.
I shared my moment of realisation with him and we tried to break the theory between us.
Neither of us could break it. I've since proposed this concept to a number of people... the right sort of thinkers... Hoping that one of them could break the theory... Eventually, they all have to agree that even though they cannot PROVE it, logic dictates that it is not possible to prove the non-existence of something.
Which is actually good news for us all really... Because it means that those barmy physicists can't prove that over-unity doesn't exist.
They can show us that it cannot exist by our current understanding... But the moment someone pops that bubble.... The physicists are going to need to make two visits.... Firstly to the psychiatrists, then to the philosophers.
Right now, in this world, there are a few people capable of popping that bubble and I am reasonably confident that it will happen within the forseeable future. Probably within my lifetime.
Tail's still a-waggin'.
The RoadRunner..
Hi Lawrence Mark and all.
here is the pulse test video, more to come
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3260.new.html#new
For Mark, based on The Tests requested by Stefan which i would like to thank for clearing every thing up for every one.
1. Was there any evidence of OU ?
There was till the Watt hour meters showed total power consumed. Strange our Amp meters and the watt meters showed different figures, check out the video only thing i can suggest is to replicate and improve and or request more tests.
2. Did any of the tests (pulse and non pulse) run for any longer for a few seconds? It is important to do so so any energy that might be stored in the fly wheel is not confused as anything else other than stored energy.
Yes it was 4 seconds on cutting a piece of wood, and one second off. The engineer present said okay but the voltage dropped, and so it wouldn't be able to be used, (the 3 amps in and 10 amps out) but we were cutting wood doing real work, but was only a piece of wood so go figure :)
3. Was there any evidence that supported Chas's previous claims (statements on TV interview and posts here) re power in power out? If not...why is this not repeatable?
No, as the system we were presented with was a simplified version, Chas described his original dimension and we posted this already, so i cannot speak for the original, whether the originals efficiencies would allow more stored or pulsed or what ever energy due to more flywheels in the equation i do not know. [the political correct answer].
By asking questions like this I am not attacking you or Chas. Its just important that all technology is tested on a level playing field.
Yes its is, and i find your attitude and questioning up to the standard which allows for the best communications.
My opinion on his system, its a great result and learning curve
I feel if we had a research and development center, where the NEC ad inventors could test and perfect their open sourced disclosures (Chas is open sourced) grant backed and endorsed then we can avoid wasting valuable time.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ResearchandDevelopment.htm
Your Panacea video production of the evaluation on Chas's device will present further findings which justifies this conclusion.
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 08:02:32 PM
Which is actually good news for us all really... Because it means that those barmy physicists can't prove that over-unity doesn't exist.
They can show us that it cannot exist by our current understanding... .
What our understanding? Their own ignorance you mean! I don't like to be auto subscribed to foul 3rd party ignorance! I don't like to be told what my understanding of something is. So when I try to create a closed loop smot the last thing I'm interested in a discussion about CoE, it's utter nonsense!! Nonsense preaching!
I had this discussion about 500 times now, and I'm 100% convinced you are not going to say a single thing that is usefull or even interesting in the context of conservation of energy.
it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible. The law the law! Don't you know abut the laws of thermodynamics? it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible, it cant work, yes but it cant work, it can never work, yes but it's impossible. The law the law! Don't you know abut the laws of thermodynamics? etc etc etc etc
The smot cant work because it doesn't work and it doesn't work because it's a smot and smots don't work.
like chickens? It's 100% bullshit. This defeats the point of having a conversation. Because it cant work and it can never work because it cant work? You understand? You could try explain but I already know it cant work you see?
It's quite a good way to drive a person insane.
For me it works rather well dude!
It can never work because it cant work? it can never work because it cant work? You understand?
QuoteAs ludicrous as the misnomer 'SMOT'. Greg Watson should be dragged out and liberally beaten with a large wet fish for propagating bad-science and calling his repopularisation of this device a SMOT instead of a SMUT.
Greg said it was a toy, it doesn't do anything useful. So what is your problem? What horrible things has this man done to you?
Could you show me some of this offending material? Show us exactly where he tricked you. Why else would you go on a frenzy screaming and crying about this man? He must have done something horrible for you to hate him like that. For now you are the one offending him IMHO. Please correct this error of mine eh?
I'm not going to apologize to anyone for sharing my thoughts about anything. You think you are in a position where you can claim people should shut up when you say they should???
I understand you perfectly well. Personally I'm all done with this treatment.
Beat with a fish? Cant you think of a more elaborate torture method?
I mean you do have to overcome your personal frustrations with it.
You think fish slapping will do the trick?
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 02:28:55 PM
When someone can get a steel ball and a magnet ramp to operate ............
I'm going to attach an image for you so that you can see this device has a magnetic ball.
This means the device is NOT A SMOT RAMP.
It doesn't even look like a smot ramp!
Who said this was a SMOT?
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 16, 2007, 06:31:08 PM
Quote from: tinu on September 16, 2007, 02:55:08 AM
Hi all,
It?s been a long thread and, by now, it should be obvious that Campbell?s machine is not working. Not the slightest chance.
Are you kidding ?
I even have not yet seen the second video which was removed and
this weekend?s measurements of Ash and his team are not in yet...
Quote
@ Stefan,
Banning Hum again is not only the greatest insult to his person but it goes beyond that.
You may be empowered to ban him, Stefan, as others may be empowered to take the OU.com domain from you and shut the whole thing down. Abusive? Yes, exactly my point.
Tinu
You are comparing apples with oranges.
You probably did not see the posting, where Humbugger made fun of Gaby de Wilde (it is now deleted)
and even posted Gaby?s real picture without permission into the thread and putting it
beneath some drunken guys pics and making fun of Gaby.
I can not accept these kind of users over here harrassing this way other users and he
already had a prior warning with his abusive postings.
Unfortunately I?m not kidding about Campbell?s wheel. It is unworkable, as not only the theory predicts but also the video. The wheel is working only as long as some balls drop off on the down side and are repositioned by hand (or by other external means) on the upper side.
Actually, not only the Campbell?s wheel is unworkable but, as seen from the other thread, the flywheel generator is unworkable also. I?m sorry but it was a false alarm all the way. Why should I joke about it? It is the sad reality.
As for Humbugger, I suppose you did not check the posts of Gaby de Wilde, haven?t you?
Please do so.
It is interesting that you decided to ban a member for copying a picture from the public domain into the public domain (?! what?s the fault here?!) and you did not take a single step against one who used words like ?moron, idiot, stupid, liar, miserable, coward, ass? etc. etc. in addressing various fine members here. Not even a warning?! ??? Well, can you reasonably justify it, at least?
I would partially understand your decision if he was of any use here. But, after reviewing most of his posts, to use just one of the words he may like (as he uses them a lot) as a conclusion, he?s nothing more than an ass-kissing of free energy. Other than that, his contribution here is zero or worse (is leading to disinformation).
Not further than several days ago, another ?nice? appellative was added to the above list, which keeps growing and growing. It?s ?imbecile?. You can read the post here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3275.0.html
All the appellatives used by gaby de wilde as well as many others of the same kind are verifiable in his former posts.
If you like this kind of members, fine.
I don?t.
Compared him with Hum?!
Better we save the time?
Tinu
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 19, 2007, 04:03:02 PM
What our understanding? Their own ignorance you mean! I don't like to be auto subscribed to foul 3rd party ignorance! I don't like to be told what my understanding of something is.
My apologies. I looked hard to see where you thought I was telling you what
your understanding is and eventually I realised that by my statement 'our understanding' I'd implied as much.
Perhaps a more appropriate terminology would have been 'popular' or 'conventional' understanding, then.
QuoteSo when I try to create a closed loop smot the last thing I'm interested in a discussion about CoE, it's utter nonsense!! Nonsense preaching!
Don't let my preaching stop you... Show us the goods you'll convert the preacher.
QuoteI had this discussion about 500 times now, and I'm 100% convinced you are not going to say a single thing that is usefull or even interesting in the context of conservation of energy.
And you're telling me this, because.....?? Are you trying to suggest that I should shut up or that if I don't you're not going to pay any attention to anything I say anyway ??
QuoteHe must have done something horrible for you to hate him like that. For now you are the one offending him IMHO. Please correct this error of mine eh?
...Beat with a fish? Cant you think of a more elaborate torture method?
Sure, I could.... but I guess you're going to turn your nose up at my humour, so why waste the effort ?
I wasn't seriously advocating torturing the guy at all.
Yes, he made a toy... Not an over-unity machine.
People also rant about other misnomers, oxymorons and contradictions in terms, especially for the sake of humour...
QuoteI'm not going to apologize to anyone for sharing my thoughts about anything.
None expected or asked for. You're telling me this for what reason ?
QuoteYou think you are in a position where you can claim people should shut up when you say they should???
You're entitled to think what you like about me. To jump to all the conclusions you choose but it bodes heavily on your credibility if you demonstrate that you jump to those conclusions without evidence.
Would you like to show me where I told anyone to shut up ?
QuoteI understand you perfectly well.
Then, Gaby, you are one heck of a genius especially in the field of psychology.
QuotePersonally I'm all done with this treatment.
Does that mean you're cured ?
... of whatever it was for which you were receiving treatment, that is..
QuoteI mean you do have to overcome your personal frustrations with it.
Or... is it that you've got to overcome your own issues with what you perceive as other people's frustrations ?
If you've no intention of apologising for your thoughts and feelings and are quite happy to air them..
... and I've no objection to you airing them...
... then why should your personal frustrations be acceptable, and mine not ?
I don't really want to argue with you Gaby... Or anyone... I've been trying to remain reasonably light-hearted and humourous but if people don't appreciate my humour, is fine... I can keep it to myself.
QuoteYou think fish slapping will do the trick?
No... Wet fish are for the likes of snake-oil salesmen and bad-scientists.
The torture in store for the perpetually frustrated is far more pleasant...
Smile.
The RoadRunner..
Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 19, 2007, 04:48:57 PM
Quote from: RoadRunner on September 17, 2007, 02:28:55 PM
When someone can get a steel ball and a magnet ramp to operate ............
I'm going to attach an image for you so that you can see this device has a magnetic ball.
This means the device is NOT A SMOT RAMP.
Premise:
1 ) Device with magnetic ball is not a SMOT ramp. Sorry... Get the capitalisation right... NOT A SMOT RAMP.
2 ) Steel is magnetic
Conclusion:
Devices with steel balls intended to roll into a magnetic gradient are not SMOT ramps.
Isn't that what I've been saying all along...?
They're SMUT ramps. :D
The RoadRunner..
roadrunner, open mouth, insert foot. sit back and enjoy.
SMOT: Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy
invented in 1985 by Greg Watson (australia)
consisted of an inclined plane line with 2 magnetic rails (of opposite polarity) and slightly staggered
The ball was made of Steel, and thus attracted to the magnets, traveled UP the incline, where it dropped through a hole, rolled back to the begining to start its climb up the ramp once again.
This system was never shown to repeat itself more than a few times, without outside energy to start the cycle again.
--- The Ball was STEEL. - now, as i agree with your original NON_SMOT argument of the first design - as the ball was actually magnetic, makine the first design NOT a smot,
the second one, using a steel ball - does not exclude it from SMOT device category. it has a steel ball, it has an inclinded plane, and it has a magnetic attraction to draw it upwards.. in all outside appeareance, it "could be" a SMOT.....
G'day all,
Why do I get the feeling no-one here is interested in Chas Campbell and his devices anymore?
Could he have been upstaged by a SMOT? :-)
Hans von Lieven
Well, there was most probably no free energy from his device.
Somehow he managed to fool himself (as always) into believing he had found free energy.
It's the same story over and over. The people inventing and repporting free energy breakthrougs
never perform any real conclusive test to determine wether it's a fact or just their own believes.
In most cases they don't have the gear or knowledge to performe these tests.
The problem is that they don't question their findings themselves, mostly due to the fact that
they have spent so many years on their machine, and the hard fact that it's not OU would kill them....
SMOT is the most interesting device so far beacuse this is the only working device as of today which proves beyond any doubt, scientifically, that the principle of CoE can be violated and that energy can be produced from nothing. It's amazing that the principle of SMOT has been known since the 15th century and has been ignored by institutional science (speaking of suppression).
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3245.msg50716.html#msg50716
See my reply. This is a warning to you as well.
Warning for what? Explain yourself!!!
Is this a threat to ban me just because I ask for real closed loop proof?
I know Humbugger got banned just because he wanted to perform real tests on the Campbell motor.
That was not fair at all and it makes the free energy business is just as suppressing and corrupt as the mainstrem energy is being accused for.
Quote from: Ergo on September 21, 2007, 09:18:00 AM
Warning for what? Explain yourself!!!
Is this a threat to ban me just because I ask for real closed loop proof?
I know Humbugger got banned just because he wanted to perform real tests on the Campbell motor.
That was not fair at all and it makes the free energy business is just as suppressing and corrupt as the mainstrem energy is being accused for.
You are an incompetent, impudently pushing yourself with your nonsense and cluttering the discussions. If one is to ban you it would be for your incompetent rubbish you're spewing, not for anything else.
Quote from: Omnibus on September 21, 2007, 03:45:31 AM
SMOT is the most interesting device so far beacuse this is the only working device as of today which proves beyond any doubt, scientifically, that the principle of CoE can be violated and that energy can be produced from nothing. It's amazing that the principle of SMOT has been known since the 15th century and has been ignored by institutional science (speaking of suppression).
If a SMOT does work, where is one? The Chas Gravity Wheel if you can get the ball to go up hill any degrees on the ramps we can prove with math that we can make the device sustainable in closed loop.... even 1 degree up... you have a smot and you can extract the energy with this wheel.. at least a proof of concept fully functional machine that will run.. Chas's Construct is pretty solid.. needs just some minor tweeking.. and some additional energy that can give a gravatational advantage :)
Quote from: Omnibus on September 21, 2007, 05:50:52 AM
The SMOT I've built is a closed-loop SMOT.
You told us that you had a woking closed loop SMOT. I just want to see the proof in action....
Quote from: Omnibus on September 21, 2007, 10:38:36 AM
You are an incompetent, impudently pushing yourself with your nonsense and cluttering the discussions. If one is to ban you it would be for your incompetent rubbish you're spewing, not for anything else.
So why are you reacting like this? Cannot you just show us your working SMOT unit in a closed loop!
If not, then you are acting very childish on my proper request to see your SMOT.
G'day all,
Even if Omnibus' SMOT works, that still would not prove that CoE has been violated. The device would have to run uninterruptedly for a long time without depletion of the magnetic field before that could be established.
What many people forget, it takes a lot of energy to create a permanent magnet of any sizable field strength. Until that energy has been accounted for one cannot speak of CoE violations.
Hans von Lieven
ok myster gday all, myster know it all why dont you post a video or something that shows that your are working or building somenthing instead of going nuts on everybody.
http://www.keelytech.com
Incidentally, I am not going nuts on everybody, far from it. Read my posts and you will see.
Hans von Lieven
I assume he's addressing omni...
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 22, 2007, 01:42:10 AM
I assume he's addressing omni...
I have come to the conclusion that there is no point addressing omni. Out of curiousity, I clicked on his name. Here are his last several posts, in their entirety. (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1784;sa=showPosts (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1784;sa=showPosts)) And they labelled Hum harrassing. Just look at this. And he is some kind of professor, you say?
And Omnibus, for a change, I am not spamming the thread with my nonsense. I am spamming it with yours.
*****************************
"Stop spamming the thread with your impudent nonsense."
"Hey, impudent incompetent, stop spamming the thread. As seen, you contribute nothing to the question under discussion and are only spewing crap."
"You are an incompetent who doesn't know his place."
"Enough of this. You are incompetent and, as seen, the only thing you can do is re-post texts which are beside the point of discussion. You have no place here. You're impudent and don't get it but I will remind you if you continue with your nonsense."
"Listen, you incompetent idiot. Not only that you don't understand Physics and therefore have no say in the matters at hand but you are arrogant and are continuously offending me not only by calling me names but mainly by ignoring my legitimate arguments. Stupid jerk, shut up or you will hear more of these characteristics which you most definitely deserve. Enough is enough. Someone must put a stop to the stupidities, ignoring of the scientific method and the offensive language the likes of you are practicing."
"Like I said, read carefully my analysis, try to understand it and stop writing stupidities such as the above. Enough of this. "
"This is an incorrect analysis because instead of reading what I wrote you're trying to fantasize groundlessly. Restrain from posting such gibberish. The correct analysis is already given above and the only thing you need to do is to read it carefully and to try to understand it."
"You are an incompetent, impudently pushing yourself with your nonsense and cluttering the discussions. If one is to ban you it would be for your incompetent rubbish you're spewing, not for anything else."
"Read carefully what I wrote to the other idiot. It applies to you too. Enough is enough. Incompetent morons cluttering the forum."
"You stupid incompetent, stop spewing your shit here, you moron. Shut up or you'll hear more of this, idiot. Enough is enough."
"I warned all incompetents already. Anybody continuing to spew nonsense will have to read these well-deserved qualifications."
Well quoted.
I think Stefan should have a look at this and remind Omnibus to stop harassing people.
I must agree,
that Omnibus sometimes is using bad words,
but I also understand why he is doing it.
As most people just don?t realize, that the SMOT really works and
is overunity.
How often do we have to explain it again and again ????
There are several videos out there, that show without a doubt,
that the SMOT ball gains energy ba going through the ramp.
There is no point anymore in discussion.
The problem still is to get it used.
Nobody has yet build a longer SMOT ramp of e.g. 1 Meter long and
a bigger height difference, so the energy gain is enough to
loop the ball back to the entrance.
Only Greg Watson and Epitaxyhad been having looped SMOTs,
but as they did build it so small, in scale, the friction influence was
just too big all the time and the ball sticked after a few cycles to the
track, because it was too much accelerated, etc...
The SMOT really needs a big setup with very precise mechanical
building and very precise control of the running ball,
otherwise you will not get it to loop.
But please stop the flamewar and hammering onto Omnibus.
The SMOT principle works.
Hi All,
please stay ontopic,
This is the Chas Campbell thread.
I will delete all flamewar postings and namecalling postings.
Please fight via private email,if you must fight each other.
Thanks.
I agree. Using add-on toolbars can cause a lot of problems with windows xp and i.e. I have had problems with this in the past and deleteing all the toolbar add-ons fixed the problems. Can someone convert the video and upload it here? Thank you.
Bill
Of course not. you stupid incompetent moron jerk idiot. ;D
I hope that answers your question. burk,
Quote from: P-Motion on September 22, 2007, 07:38:10 PM
Omni, one standard in science has always been the repeatability of something.
Is there an independent source that has tried this or sources to validate the claims made ?
posting under a different alias omnibus?
still not game to show your face? it MUST be ugly.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2007, 05:53:47 AM
Nobody has yet build a longer SMOT ramp of e.g. 1 Meter long and
a bigger height difference, so the energy gain is enough to
loop the ball back to the entrance.
I have been thinking about this quite a bit too. If a ramp is long enough, it could get the ball high enough to make use of the elevated height. If I get some time and some materials, I want to try this.
What I have seen from videos, however, is when people try to make the ramp too long, the magnets at the base are simply not close enough to get the ball started.
I think the most efficient way to test is to attach magnets to a couple of long sticks and have the ball in a plastic tube. This way you can easily adjust distance and angle of magnets without having to manually reposition things. And the tube will help with the ball not falling off the ramp.
No Han?s I'm just being as colorful for the skeptical side.
I have never seen a SMOT demonstrated that showed more
energy out than put in.
burk,
Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 22, 2007, 09:49:59 PM
posting under a different alias omnibus?
still not game to show your face? it MUST be ugly.
Hans von Lieven
Has anyone tried placing the magnets at a vertical angle as well the angle for the track? In other words, leaning them back at, say, about 10-20 degrees or so. All of the videos I have seen have them at 90 degrees to the base. I like the idea about the tube. This is so very interesting to me. It seems to me that it would not be that difficult to have a ramp that utilizes gravity to take the ball back around to the "start" position. If the ball can be made to "go uphill" this should be enough gained height to allow the ball to roll down a curved ramp (C-shaped) back to the start. I am new to this design of the SMOT but it is fun to think about.
Bill
Quotes from hartiberlin
Quote
I must agree,
that Omnibus sometimes is using bad words,
but I also understand why he is doing it.
Does this imply it's a "free for all" so long as Stefan understands ??? ....now I can proudly tell everyone to FU_ck Off if they doubt I have a working OU flip-flopper wheel ...."YIPPY"!!!!!
Quote
As most people just don?t realize, that the SMOT really works and
is overunity.
Geee....that's news to me! But hey!...I Dare not doubt you! (i'm not allowed) ;D
Quote
How often do we have to explain it again and again ????
Stefan, (knock knock!! anyone home??) I guess thats your job mate! why get angry? it's always gonna be! ...hey, you're even skimming hard cold cash off this forum, so why are you scaring forum members away??? ....who gives a shit?
Quote
There are several videos out there, that show without a doubt
OK then, I'll look for it......if I cain't find it, I'll believe even though I don't see ....hows that for hearsay loyalty?
Quote
There is no point anymore in discussion.
oooops......close call, I'll keep future discussions to myself. :'(
Quote
Only Greg Watson and Epitaxyhad been having looped SMOTs,
but as they did build it so small, in scale, the friction influence was
just too big all the time and the ball sticked after a few cycles to the
track, because it was too much accelerated, etc...
DAM !! ....I really thought OU was something that worked a little longer than 20 seconds??? ....O' well, I suppose you could call it "overunity in spirit" :-X
Quote
The SMOT really needs a big setup with very precise mechanical
building and very precise control of the running ball,
otherwise you will not get it to loop.
heard you the first time :D
Quote
But please stop the flamewar and hammering onto Omnibus.
That's right Stefan!!! ......anyone who so much as looks at Omnibus or Ashwerth should be exiled to http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=99c96fcc3c3ea21e4ec19e510b36b8e4 untill they've redeemed themselvs..........SHAMEFUL LOT! >:(
Quote
The SMOT principle works.
Well...as "Boy Georg Kunstler" would say:
The future has begun
;D
Quote from: Pirate88179 on September 23, 2007, 12:16:08 AM
If the ball can be made to "go uphill" this should be enough gained height to allow the ball to roll down a curved ramp (C-shaped) back to the start. I am new to this design of the SMOT but it is fun to think about.
Bill
The problem exhibited so far is that the magnets simply do not want to let the ball go, unless you allow for a significant drop right at the end of the ramp. And the distance the ball has to drop to get out of the magnetic pull exceeds the vertical distance the ball has travelled, so unfortunately it has been impossible to get the ball back to the starting position.
Shruggedatlas:
Ah, mother nature keeping things in balance again....I hate that. Thank you for the explanation. So, the magnets won't release at the end without gravity.....hmmmm....even velocity won't overcome this? What about, instead of the angle at the end, it curved outward in a semi-parabolic shape? Kind of like )( on the curved portion at the end and keeping the angles at the begining. I am sorry for speculating. Most would say, "if you think it might work, build it", and they would be right. One of the things I enjoy about this forum is that it saves a lot of us from going down dead end paths that have been attempted before. I wish I had this forum years ago.... ha ha.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on September 23, 2007, 12:43:39 AM
Shruggedatlas:
Ah, mother nature keeping things in balance again....I hate that. Thank you for the explanation. So, the magnets won't release at the end without gravity.....hmmmm....even velocity won't overcome this? What about, instead of the angle at the end, it curved outward in a semi-parabolic shape? Kind of like )( on the curved portion at the end and keeping the angles at the begining. I am sorry for speculating. Most would say, "if you think it might work, build it", and they would be right. One of the things I enjoy about this forum is that it saves a lot of us from going down dead end paths that have been attempted before. I wish I had this forum years ago.... ha ha.
Bill
No need to apologize. It is good to talk about things before building them, so that you can get some advice and save some time beforehand.
As far as your proposal, if you have a ramp at the top, you mitigate the force of gravity and you may not be able to get the ball away from the magnets. The ball has velocity, but not enough to get away from the magnets unassisted by gravity. In the video below, someone sets up what is in my opinion the best attempt to make this work perpetually. They basically take several ramps and make a circle from them. Still no go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmsu9NbLxGk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmsu9NbLxGk)
Shruggedatlas:
Thanks for the reply. The video was short, but interesting. Obviously many others have been working on this for a while now. (unlike me for this approach) I like your idea about the rods where you could adjust the angle very slightly and easily. Good idea. It may turn out that to "release" the ball might be an adustment of only a few thousands of an inch. With your idea, this could be tested very accurately.
Bill
P-Motion:
I like the idea of simulating mass reduction (or is it just weight reduction?) of the bearing by raising the magnets as the incline increases. I would think this would have to be done in a precise manner otherwise, the bearing will fly to the closest mag. A lot of good ideas here.
Bill
P-Motion:
I agree. I think you are talking about calculating vectors, which, with my weak mathematics background, is beyond me. There are some very intelligent, and educated, people on here that I am sure could help you figure out how to do that. I also like the idea of varring the power of the magnets as it goes along. Also, if you had magnets placed over the top of the sphere as you mentioned, toward the end of the track run, to get the sphere to release more easily could be done by possibly just using the magnets on the top near the very end. Then as soon as the sphere leaves the track, and drops ever so slightly, it might be out of the influence of the top magnets and certainly not attracted by the side magnets as it has already passed them.
Bill
P-Motion:
You have hit upon something I have always been thinking about. When you place two strong magnets in repulsion, it takes "energy" or "power" to keep them there. So, I am wondering when you lock two magnets securly in repulsion, (spaced apart) since it takes energy to do this, is any energy being given off in some way we don't understand? Has anyone tried passing a coil through a repulsed magnetic field to see what, if any, energy output might be? This is the kind of stuff that keeps me awake at night. I can't speak to my local friends about this sort of thing, they think I am nuts, which is entirely possible of course.
Bill
G'day all,
You mean something like this??
Hans von Lieven
But what about Charles Cambell? This is all talking on mangets!
Summing it up, it looks like old Cambell did not have any free energy after all.
As always the inventor doesn't have the will or skill to test his inventions, using reliable and recognized test methods.
After spending many years developing and feeling like he's hit a gold mine it can be hard to face the real truth.
This is one of many reasons of why these home built OU inventions never get tested properly. They are scared to hear the verdict.
Sorry P-motion,
The device you are talking about is bobmaries motor, not Campbells. Chas does not use compressed air.
Apart from that your analysis is correct.
Hans von Lieven
Guys friend sent me this off list,
First you crank the wheel with a huge crank and get it going about 10 rpm's? Then you open the gate and let the cylinders start falling into the channel. You keep cranking as best you can until the momentum takes over with the cylinders traveling uphill from the thrust. The small wheel has spring rods in case there happens to be a cylinder coming in at the same time the rod
the picture will not display in full - even when trying to download it.
only the top section appears.
please try again.. thx
(and or forward a copy to: xiaou2@hotmail.com)
Hello Ashtweth,
I removed the picture, we do not need two. Jason
Original re posted, Have also forwarded to Chas.
hi to all
How did it come to this 61 pages and no working wheel ???
How did this "Chas Campbell" wheel get through the Australian TV broadcasting as proof of O/U ??? ....it was working while it was being filmed !!
When I asked Ash to verify that the "gravity wheel" rotates on it's own without the rest of the electrics I recieved a reply but not as an answer to my question....why ???
@ Ashtweth / epi
please don't take this the wrong was but I've come to the conclusion that there could be other disturbing posibilities regarding your "hurried" involvment with Chas and his wheel.
your frenzied advertising and expansion of your "panacia" website during this Chas Campbell gravity wheel saga was nothing more than "forceful spoonfeeding" .......exerting / FLOGING maximum exposure for your website "panacia" ???
It's posible that Chas' wheel won't work now due to you purposely fiddeling with it so thereby keeping the real PM movement secret for yourself until such time ??? .....seeing that Chas is pretty old and frail. He would'nt know what you were even doing behind the scenes anyway ???
It's possible you were purposely ignoring forum members requests including Stefans for the type of testing that was required ???
God....this is just one big shocking mess ???
Ash, maybe I'm wrong with all my assumptions.....but what are we to think ??? .....I look at it from this point of view....."HOW CAN A COMPANY DRILLING FOR GOLD STRIKE 80 % GOLD @ 60 FEET BELOW, OVER AN AREA OF 20 SQUARE MILES AND THEN TELL SHAREHOLDERS THAT TEST RESULTS WERE A MISUNDERSTANDING" ???
you have to wonder what the board of directors were doing behind closed doors for 6 hours ??? >:( >:( >:(
LOL
Quote
Did you miss the part where Arsetwitch admitted to Stefan that Charles had faked the gravity wheel demo on that video by hooking it up to his electric motor contraption "just for show"? It was buried deep and Humbugger brought it out...
What I don't understand is how Stefan and others can continue fanning the embers of hope in Charles' fake devices at this point and not lose immense credibility. I mean, look what the headline news is here on this site: "Chas Campbell Video here now! Blah blah blah". It gets to be pretty obvious that Stefan and Arsetwitch are in it to promote their own website hits and not much more.
I must of missed it, but if it's true that the demo was faked, then why did'nt Stefan react to it by taking stringent measures ? ....could be that temptation can far out weigh common sense regarding increased hits on this forum ? Hey! .. I can fully understand the temptation. ;) ......I bet you'd do the same if it were putting food on your table (I say what people don't know wont hurt them) ... ;)
what the hell happen to this thread?
moving on...
peace
Quote from: sevich on September 29, 2007, 12:18:18 AM
hi to all
@ Ashtweth / epi
please don't take this the wrong was but I've come to the conclusion that there could be other disturbing posibilities regarding your "hurried" involvment with Chas and his wheel.
your frenzied advertising and expansion of your "panacia" website during this Chas Campbell gravity wheel saga was nothing more than "forceful spoonfeeding" .......exerting / FLOGING maximum exposure for your website "panacia" ???
It's posible that Chas' wheel won't work now due to you purposely fiddeling with it so thereby keeping the real PM movement secret for yourself until such time ??? .....seeing that Chas is pretty old and frail. He would'nt know what you were even doing behind the scenes anyway ???
It's possible you were purposely ignoring forum members requests including Stefans for the type of testing that was required ???
God....this is just one big shocking mess ???
The irony is awesome. Someone is accusing Ash of being an OIL MAN!
Can the original post be marked to mention that it was an unsuccessful outcome.....it is getting alote of attention ................
Quote from: sevich on September 29, 2007, 12:18:18 AM
hi to all
How did it come to this 61 pages and no working wheel ???
How did this "Chas Campbell" wheel get through the Australian TV broadcasting as proof of O/U ??? ....it was working while it was being filmed !!
When I asked Ash to verify that the "gravity wheel" rotates on it's own without the rest of the electrics I recieved a reply but not as an answer to my question....why ???
@ Ashtweth / epi
please don't take this the wrong was but I've come to the conclusion that there could be other disturbing posibilities regarding your "hurried" involvment with Chas and his wheel.
your frenzied advertising and expansion of your "panacia" website during this Chas Campbell gravity wheel saga was nothing more than "forceful spoonfeeding" .......exerting / FLOGING maximum exposure for your website "panacia" ???
It's posible that Chas' wheel won't work now due to you purposely fiddeling with it so thereby keeping the real PM movement secret for yourself until such time ??? .....seeing that Chas is pretty old and frail. He would'nt know what you were even doing behind the scenes anyway ???
It's possible you were purposely ignoring forum members requests including Stefans for the type of testing that was required ???
God....this is just one big shocking mess ???
Ash, maybe I'm wrong with all my assumptions.....but what are we to think ??? .....I look at it from this point of view....."HOW CAN A COMPANY DRILLING FOR GOLD STRIKE 80 % GOLD @ 60 FEET BELOW, OVER AN AREA OF 20 SQUARE MILES AND THEN TELL SHAREHOLDERS THAT TEST RESULTS WERE A MISUNDERSTANDING" ???
you have to wonder what the board of directors were doing behind closed doors for 6 hours ??? >:( >:( >:(
LOL
Sevich it seems i was wrong about you mate. Your out of the game mate. No second chances you should know that by now, sober up mate, i have no need to address that, it is utter mental frustration, elervating your self from defaming others will leave you emtpy in life .
Ill tell you what happened to this thread lack of moderation and people venting their frustrations out, we went in and got the infomraiton to allow replication and published our results.
Plus stated that We feel his Gravity wheel needs more attension and if people granted us we would give it to Chas as he would release any of his reuslts open sourced. If you dont like that, i coulodnt give two F$$Ks
We also published that his Motor Gen isnt OU at this stage, but published more data which could be applyed to it and used the publicity in some of our presentations to put forth more pressing issues, plus have shown the answer to aviud this in the future. A proposed Granted center for these technolgies.
Plus we use this altrusitic gesture and applyed it to other areas. We build by the way, dont sit on the internet and apply USELESS maths or skepticism, and or bitch useless drivel.
It seems these threads are filled with un moderated frustrations,.
If you want information and to see the out come, plus aquire any more infomraiton on chas's Device just visit the panacea page.
I wont be frequenting here tilll Humbugger is removed.
Thanks to Asthweth we got more information from Chas Campbell. Thanks again! It took time and effort and money to got there, film, and speak to the inventor.
It is not Asthweth's device, its Chas. And if Chas is not willing at the moment to open source his only worth to investigate device, it's OK, because it's his decision. But then he is not altruistic at the moment. No gift to the world. Thats clear. He should say then: "Sorry, changed my mind, will NOT Open Source it HERE. Thanks for your attention."
The other stuff (Pool Billiard and Flywheel) are funny but will never work as overunity parts and misleading somewhere.
@ Joh70
Quote from: Joh70 on September 30, 2007, 01:22:08 PM
It is not Asthweth's device, its Chas. And if Chas is not willing at the moment to open source his only worth to investigate device, it's OK, because it's his decision. But then he is not altruistic at the moment. No gift to the world. Thats clear. He should say then: "Sorry, changed my mind, will NOT Open Source it HERE. Thanks for your attention."
How interesting. ;D
Are you claiming that Chas has spread
disinformation to Ashtwert ?
Yes, thats my opinion. Chas wants to figure out first, how we deal with him. And as every inventor, he don't wants to waste years of work. His children have an interest too in earning money with his real OU-Generator (at least when he dies, because hes old and maybe sick). So i asume he is very carefully choosing the people talking to about his secrets. The flywheel is part of his OU-device but only for energy storage. The snookers-ball-wheel are for investigation only and will never work. Maybe he beleaves it can work or not. Doesn't matter much to him, because he already has a working device (see the very first device from his promotion-CD: Big wheel plus flywheels). Not just for show, thats disinformation. I don't beleave that. For snookers-test the big wheel was changed. He covered the arms with something, so nobody can see whats behind, or he had to cover, for stability. So he has OU but don't wants to open source it NOW or HERE/THIS WAY.
Quote from: Joh70 on October 01, 2007, 08:51:00 AM
Yes, thats my opinion. Chas wants to figure out first, how we deal with him. And as every inventor, he don't wants to waste years of work. His children have an interest too in earning money with his real OU-Generator (at least when he dies, because hes old and maybe sick). So i asume he is very carefully choosing the people talking to about his secrets. The flywheel is part of his OU-device but only for energy storage. The snookers-ball-wheel are for investigation only and will never work. Maybe he beleaves it can work or not. Doesn't matter much to him, because he already has a working device (see the very first device from his promotion-CD: Big wheel plus flywheels). Not just for show, thats disinformation. I don't beleave that. For snookers-test the big wheel was changed. He covered the arms with something, so nobody can see whats behind, or he had to cover, for stability. So he has OU but don't wants to open source it NOW or HERE/THIS WAY.
IF YOUR ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT , then all I can say is....."MAJOR SHIT HAS HIT THE FAN" completely spraying Stefan, Ashwerth and the rest of the forum! ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
just too funny !! :D ....cain't stop!
I guess stefan also agrees because he's taken "Chas champbels" video off from this forum .... it must mean something :-X
where the hell is humm / Hissy ...lol
@Ash
First of all thanks for all your participation in bringing us the Chas Wheel as well as the Chas Flywheel devices.
I know it was not easy and I am sure you felt like you had to walk across a mine-field at times due to some people here giving you a hard time.
Well nothing is ever lost, and I am sure what you have learned from this escapade will give you more food for thought.
Here are some main points as far as I am concerned.
1) A gravity wheel that size with that much weight to turn requires bowling balls, not billiard balls.
2) If Panacea does OU investigations in the future on behalf of overunity.com, it should do it in the most impartial manner possible and not with the open intent to mainly pursue any RV aspect.
The initial inventors design must take precedence before any considerations for RV or other alternatives are used. Testing and fully understanding the device, as is, is more important than playing around with it in other ways. Only once the original design is understood fully, should you consider other avenues.
I mean why should you risk putting the RV into a checkmate situation, just to prove a point. You may wind up proving the wrong point. So be careful how you decide to promote RV.
3) On the Fylwheel generator, if Chas added two more pulleys before the generator end, he will be one step ahead of me because in Jan-Feb 2008, I will be trying out my Alternative #2 (3-6-9) located at;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3260.msg48499.html#msg48499
By using a higher than required RPM drive that will go down to its required RPM under load and a 10kw generator running at 50%-75% recovery. That should be a good mix. So the clock is ticking, tic-toc, tic-toc. And time will tell.
4) Remember, I did not recommend you sell extraction or other circuits to make money, but ONLY to increase the number of testers of RV. Like I said, replicating the RV is easy but making the circuits is not for everyone. Actually, most EEers will not want to get involved with the heavy nuts and bolts. Anyways, think about it, will ya?
5) I think people here wanted Chas' device to work above and beyond all the physics considerations, simply because he seems to be a very nice person who is pretty up in years and we all wanted him to achieve success with this obvious substantial build. But nice does not cut it in OU. Ultimately, it either works or it does not. Either way, it's a learning experience.
6) Don't leave a forum the way you did. Always keep the door open. You're young. You'll learn.
Thanks again and all the best.
"A gravity wheel that size with that much weight to turn requires bowling balls, not billiard balls."
The fact, that the wheel is much to heavy to be driven by billiard balls shows again, that it's origin use was different.
Thanks John, and greetings to most lol
The R and D is very much alive, i am taking a professional fitter and turner over to see Chas to assess how he can make his wheel materials more robust and stabilize his design, all will be revealed open sourced of cause ;). I will do my best to get others tests out of the way we have two videos to still upload, no internet at home yet we just moved house, they are not as revealing of Chas's wheel as the stuff already on the page just to let people know in advance.
@ watts up,
>@AshFirst of all thanks for all your participation in bringing us the Chas Wheel as well as the Chas Flywheel devices.
We are a non profit org and here to help you are welcome
>I know it was not easy and I am sure you felt like you had to walk across a mine-field at times due to some people here giving you a hard time.
I don't offend easily, in fact its i that usually offend, no one or thing will stop me from working non profit towards building our children a future, its the time wasting that pisses me off beware any one who does my time is very precious and busy
>Well nothing is ever lost, and I am sure what you have learned from this escapade will give you more food for thought.
it comes back to what i have known for years we need a granted research and development center
>1) A gravity wheel that size with that much weight to turn requires bowling balls, not billiard balls.
I cannot address that technically, would prefer you showing us in the lab in comparison to the actual wheel
>2) If Panacea does OU investigations in the future on behalf of overunity.com, it should do it in the most impartial manner possible and not with the open intent to mainly pursue any RV aspect.
Not agreed, the RV was used only additionally and has helped some plus can improve many areas, i see your water pump and or drill lathe and or saw isn't run in RV mode.
If it is one HP then you my friend are wasting energy ;), you are welcome to use my RV drill for your experiments, but build your own via our recommendations you will see we are not wrong. I dontr know one engineer who hasn't used an RV and not saved energy if there are those let me ttell me i will show them the way, and or the engineers i know
>The initial inventors design must take precedence before any considerations for RV or other alternatives are used. Testing and fully understanding the device, as is, is more important than playing around with it in other ways. Only once the original design is understood fully, should you consider other avenues.
we did both, so DITTO don't rag on the RV bro it will cause this young man to become defensive ;)
>I mean why should you risk putting the RV into a checkmate situation, just to prove a point. You may wind up proving the wrong point. So be careful how you decide to promote RV.
We would of never associated the RV with his device unless test were conclusive but thanks for the advice mate any ways okay :) i know you mean well
>3) On the Fylwheel generator, if Chas added two more pulleys before the generator end, he will be one step ahead of me because in Jan-Feb 2008, I will be trying out my Alternative #2 (3-6-9) located at;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3260.msg48499.html#msg48499
Well dam man, some one building and not bitching ??? :o :-X
Let me know if i can help i bet i can
>By using a higher than required RPM drive that will go down to its required RPM under load and a 10kw generator running at 50%-75% recovery. That should be a good mix. So the clock is ticking, tic-toc, tic-toc. And time will tell.
FREQ drive your RV with the pulley to get the desired RPM, it will help based on lab tests of loading the RV prime mover,, don't de construct your set up till we or you get you a Freq drive for your RV.
--------------------------------------------
The users ignored know why they are ignored.
Will report the results when in.
Ooops sorry guys missed some posts and have addressed them in my edited post.
sorry about that. :P
Chas write up updated from our on line university, his web page is being updated ATM too.
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D21.pdf
More[tests] to come .
Ashtweth
??It is not clear if the irregular drive which makes this system work so well is due to the way that the mains motor works, or to slight slippage in the drive belts. The bottom line is that Chas? system produces excess energy?? p16 of 18
I thought everything I had read here and in the other Chas thread and seen on the testing video clearly showed no excess energy! I even read a couple posts where Ashtweth Nihilisti explained how he was removing the claims of excess energy or OU from his Panacea website in regard to this machine. Now the newly-edited Panacea University booklet contains this pair of statements? Weird!
Linda Damiani
Quote from: linda933 on October 06, 2007, 08:30:13 AM
??It is not clear if the irregular drive which makes this system work so well is due to the way that the mains motor works, or to slight slippage in the drive belts. The bottom line is that Chas? system produces excess energy?? p16 of 18
I thought everything I had read here and in the other Chas thread and seen on the testing video clearly showed no excess energy! I even read a couple posts where Ashtweth Nihilisti explained how he was removing the claims of excess energy or OU from his Panacea website in regard to this machine. Now the newly-edited Panacea University booklet contains this pair of statements? Weird!
Linda Damiani
The Milkovic pendulum and the gravity chain are in there too as overunity devices, so don't expect too many corrections.
dear ash,
i often here conspiracy theories and no funding available for research.
have a look at this site 104 million in funding projects , many solar research even one tyrning sea plants into light crude.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/atp_2007_awards.html
i know other projects including magnetic motors recieving multi million funding.
My question to you (I am trying to be helpful) is what is common amoungst all of them.
I feel the biggest is credability.
The second is they have valid data supporting there research
If you read the projects being funded many will have a big impact on delivering cheap alternative energy products ..one I know of reducing solar panel costs to less than 25c a watt.
Like I said, just trying to be helpful.
PS these projects are funded by the USA government
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on October 06, 2007, 02:27:37 PM
dear ash,
i often here conspiracy theories and no funding available for research.
have a look at this site 104 million in funding projects , many solar research even one tyrning sea plants into light crude.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/atp_2007_awards.html
i know other projects including magnetic motors recieving multi million funding.
My question to you (I am trying to be helpful) is what is common amoungst all of them.
I feel the biggest is credability.
The second is they have valid data supporting there research
If you read the projects being funded many will have a big impact on delivering cheap alternative energy products ..one I know of reducing solar panel costs to less than 25c a watt.
Like I said, just trying to be helpful.
PS these projects are funded by the USA government
Mark
Come on, you know what conspiracy theorists will say. That website is fake, there is no money, and don't believe your lying eyes.
Quote from: markdansie on October 06, 2007, 02:27:37 PM
dear ash,
i often here conspiracy theories and no funding available for research.
have a look at this site 104 million in funding projects , many solar research even one tyrning sea plants into light crude.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/atp_2007_awards.html
i know other projects including magnetic motors recieving multi million funding.
My question to you (I am trying to be helpful) is what is common amoungst all of them.
I feel the biggest is credability.
The second is they have valid data supporting there research
If you read the projects being funded many will have a big impact on delivering cheap alternative energy products ..one I know of reducing solar panel costs to less than 25c a watt.
Like I said, just trying to be helpful.
PS these projects are funded by the USA government
Mark
Please see my recently-edited post at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3332.msg52830.html#msg52830
I think someone here has been grossly misrepresenting other people's work and owes the forum and the inventor a sincere apology.
Linda
okay that user is Humbugger, encase your suckered in by this user il, state the reference enfact check it out yourself what is stated
his other informaiton is not accurate either and twisted to try and dis credit my self, this crosses [dressing] posting pest with not technical practical knowledge is back and not going to waste my time again.
If people need to contact me they know where to find me.,
Ashtweth
Quote from: markdansie on October 06, 2007, 02:27:37 PM
dear ash,
i often here conspiracy theories and no funding available for research.
have a look at this site 104 million in funding projects , many solar research even one tyrning sea plants into light crude.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/atp_2007_awards.html
i know other projects including magnetic motors recieving multi million funding.
My question to you (I am trying to be helpful) is what is common amoungst all of them.
I feel the biggest is credability.
The second is they have valid data supporting there research
If you read the projects being funded many will have a big impact on delivering cheap alternative energy products ..one I know of reducing solar panel costs to less than 25c a watt.
Like I said, just trying to be helpful.
PS these projects are funded by the USA government
Mark
before i go , @ mark
Ask the USA government who funded Focus Fusion why there is no more funding, Credibility can come in many ways, the death of Eugene Mallove, Suppression of Focus fusion (plus many more) and EVGRAY's death are very creditable.
To sort through the mess [gain creditability from devices and prevent political and economic conditions] you can have a proposed granted research and development center, it doesn't take away from the fact that real free energy devices exist are suppressed and the government is [in part] behind it.
Ask the disclosure projects 450 witnesses about the energy source in the UFO"s, and why the government wont let you know about it, ask Dan Aykroyd what happened the time his show was canceled when he was about to interview Greer. (right on the day)
Ask them why Nasa grants stopped for Eric learners device.
Go and Ask Tom Valone about Eric learner and his proton boron process
Wake up mark.
Dear Ash,
I find your comments rather emotive. Its funny how you talk about government suppression. In Australia I have seen the oppersite. yesterday the worlds largest windfarm was announced to be built in NSW and another friend of mine who started a solar company has grown from nothing to a company doing hundreds of millions of dollars owrth of business in a matter of a few months.
Surely these projects would be targets.
There is a lot of funding out there. I am of to NZ today to work on one (magnetic motor) which was funded in days for further development. I am also returning to Australia next week to review and test another electromagnetic device up in QLD. Once again if it lives up to its claims it will recieve large funding to commercialise it.
I travel the world many times a year and have yet to see any evidence of suppression first hand. In fact I see the oppersite.
I think your research institute idea is a good one, and one is being built in Australia if things go to plan next year. However there will be a screening process. As I found with many claims for OU around the world, most are based on mythology or self delusion. As can be seen, no one here has ever claimed the prize. That doesnt mean it cant be done...it just hasnt been done yet.
PS your little mate in Melbourne has proven using numerology that he is the new JC and has claims to the Throne in England. I also believed he made an ultimatium to the Australian government that if he is not made PM he will release info re his OU device to the world. Perhaps you should bring him onboard to help seek funding and as a political advisor.
well I am back to sleep now
kind regards
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on October 08, 2007, 04:04:21 PM
Dear Ash,
I find your comments rather emotive. Its funny how you talk about government suppression. In Australia I have seen the oppersite. yesterday the worlds largest windfarm was announced to be built in NSW and another friend of mine who started a solar company has grown from nothing to a company doing hundreds of millions of dollars owrth of business in a matter of a few months.
Surely these projects would be targets.
There is a lot of funding out there. I am of to NZ today to work on one (magnetic motor) which was funded in days for further development. I am also returning to Australia next week to review and test another electromagnetic device up in QLD. Once again if it lives up to its claims it will recieve large funding to commercialise it.
I travel the world many times a year and have yet to see any evidence of suppression first hand. In fact I see the oppersite.
I think your research institute idea is a good one, and one is being built in Australia if things go to plan next year. However there will be a screening process. As I found with many claims for OU around the world, most are based on mythology or self delusion. As can be seen, no one here has ever claimed the prize. That doesnt mean it cant be done...it just hasnt been done yet.
PS your little mate in Melbourne has proven using numerology that he is the new JC and has claims to the Throne in England. I also believed he made an ultimatium to the Australian government that if he is not made PM he will release info re his OU device to the world. Perhaps you should bring him onboard to help seek funding and as a political advisor.
well I am back to sleep now
kind regards
Mark
Amen, brother! I would hope people doing serious work for humanity's future could calm down and use reason, critical thinking and good scientific method to carefully evaluate where best to place their efforts and resources. Too many, it seems, are easily distracted by every unsound claimant in their zeal to promote their own endeavors.
Thankfully, there are groups like the NEC who take science and use it as a tool rather than as a demonic plague to be avoided. Keep up the good work, Mark, and keep stripping away the chaff. I know and you know...the wheat will be found and harvested.
Linda
I came back to see if this user was removed as i have a personal message ,
it seems its still time wasting here.i don't think its funny mark , so don't get on your high horse and think energy suppression , the disclosure project and or focus fusion is FUNNY MATE, because you are going to discredit your self. You cant refute that can you,
instead of telling me the disclosure project and focus fusion are real (try and refute that asshole)
you state
"PS your little mate in Melbourne has proven using numerology that he is the new JC and has claims to the Throne in England. I also believed he made an ultimatium to the Australian government that if he is not made PM he will release info re his OU device to the world. Perhaps you should bring him onboard to help seek funding and as a political advisor."
For malice Mark, who do you think your fooling mate.
And whilst i am at it, don't call a person i am investigating my little mate, and thirdly, i don't care what you think about panaceas concept Mark, good luck with your investments. i hope you think of me when your shares crash.
money subjugation and the status Quo are the weakest links Mark, you will see natural selection in your life time.Some one who thinks energy suppression isn't real, is in my suspicious books
Mark, so i will keep my eye on you , you wont get any where near any thing we are doing.
off the record i think personally your full of shit, and i don't trust you mate or need to, so your comments take you no where, and i will tell you nothing and take you no where.
who ever has request you can email me.
this banned user who goes back and edits its post is still rife here i dont have time for these threads any more.
Ashtweth
@Mark
If there are so many funds available for alternative green energy what happened to Zhengrong Shi?
"That PhD - and subsequent work with his professors Martin Green and Stuart Wenham created a breakthrough for the viability of solar energy. But rather than start his revolutionary industry here he was lured to China with the promise of start-up funding and government assistance. The opportunity to keep Zhengrong Shi and the burgeoning industry in this country was lost as former NSW Premier Bob Carr laments."
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/feature_stories/article_2321.asp
I can't see how the Australian Govt. would be keen on funding anything that may jepodise all those export $'s. Australia has the largest deposits of coal in the world.
What has happened to the "hot rock" technology? I don't hear anything about that also. It was supposed to have a lot of potential.
Some months ago there was a feature story on tv about somebody involved with a solar cells who was moving to California to set up as he couldn't get enough interest here in Australia. The governator welcomed him with open arms.
Any ideas or suggestions would be welcomed. I want to also incorporate other bessler wheel ideas into the same design somehow. The section on top would be driven by gears, to rotate and pull the ball out of the sticky spot.
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/magneticExp/adsitt/section2.htm
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg515.imageshack.us%2Fimg515%2F2742%2Fwheel1jw9.jpg&hash=00b66eb7cd9fa6fc5d363f4864947a15f96c868c)
More ideas to come..
Speaking of magnets, I was looking at an old foot powered sewing machine and came up with this design. I do not know how to make computer designs yet so I drew it by hand. I like the stair magnet design but I believe cylinders would be more weighty to create more torque. Jason
(//)
Dear Stefan,
You were quick to kick of Humbugger, I would like you comments on these posts by Ash
"off the record i think personally your full of shit, and i don't trust you mate or need to, so your comments take you no where, and i will tell you nothing and take you no where."
"instead of telling me the disclosure project and focus fusion are real (try and refute that asshole)"
"Mark, so i will keep my eye on you "
I am always polite and sometimes challenging in my posts. I do work full time in researching energy claims (currently in New Zealand).
I feel Ash has brought a lot of discredit to himself and if he is demanding I be removed, on what grounds?
I have always had an open mind to new energy projects, but unless they are repeatable and have the ability to be reproduced by others I see little value. Often as in the case of Ash, claims are sensationalised and when no evidence, or when data is available, it comes down to conspiracy theories.
Many great technologies are being developed in solar and wind (have a look at freeenergynews) and I wills soon be returning to The USA where a project is being developed that has already been proven to reduce pollution and increase fuel economy 200 to 300%.
I also am the Real Mark Dansie Ash. I am a resident of Caniaba NSW and if you want to see if I am real I will be at Brisbane Airport on Wednesday at 3:35 pm arriving from NZ.
Next week I have been invited to test an electro magnetic device in QLD and will post my results at the NEC.
So Stefan ..are you going to play an even hand on this matter or are you going to allow the behaviour that Ash has exhibited to continue.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
@tomd000
You are correct in the government in Australia lets many projects slip away. However a lot of private money has been invested. The Silver solar cells in South Australia recieved $1 govt money and $20 private. I also know of another solar company recieved $38 last year private money.
the Hot Rocks is as far as I know still progressing.
I do not have info on all projects but i do know billions world wide are being invested in technologies like solar , wind and wave. there is one possible OU project out of Hungary that has recently recieved 40 million to continue.
You make a good point and I am sure many technologies still fall through the cracks...this is a shame. On the otherhand there are a lot of fraudsters out there that make it hard for the real developers. If data can be presented to support claims made by any techniology and its repeatable it is a lot easier to find funding.
Thank you for your comments and bringing those to my attention.
Kind Regards
Mark
From the Lawrence Tseung thread:
Quote from: Forever on November 03, 2007, 03:10:58 AM
Participating in the AERO competition
I have discussion with Mr. Tseung on possibly participating in the AERO competition. The products that are already supported by the Chinese government (Wang, Liang, Tsing Hua, Chao etc.) will need government approval.
Quote
from Patrick Kelly
The ready-made product is the Chas Campbell electricity magnifier. Just a brief note
to let you know that in the last two or three days, Chas has confirmed the excess energy in his system by letting it get up to speed and then disconnecting the motor from the mains and plugging it into the output generator, making it self-powered.
He says that the speed maintains perfectly well and he has put a 75-watt lamp on it as an extra load. This is COP = infinity as the user's input power is zero while the output power is either 75 watts or 825 watts depending on how you view it.
We may be able to work with Chas Campbell, Gaby, Ash, Kelly and others to produce a prototype that can meet the requirement of the AERO competition.
It should be fun! US$ 200K plus USD $5million for the next two years is incentive enough for me. 8) ;D ;) :)
Forever Yuen
Interesting that $5,200,000 US isn't enough to get Patrick Kelly, Ashtweth, Gaby and Charles to even respond to your suggestion! Could it be that the "news" of Charles Campbell now having a self-running machine that produces excess power is another big fat delusion?
If there were any substance to this third-hand report, one might think it would raise a response or two! Where is the excitement? The hoopla? Better yet...where are the corroborating reports and videos?
This sounds like a good time for Mark Dansie to visit Charles and check it out, maybe. Or has everyone lost all belief in the non-credible claims and fourth-party reports of this motley crew?
Linda
Hmm,
Maybe some dont like the Idea of Selling Out their fellow brothers and sisters.
Some people do have a conscience.
This the last message I received from Chas:
From: chas campbell
To: Patrick Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: simple test
Patrick as I told you in a recent e mail as soon as posiable I would build a unit to test using your simple idea , I am now delighted to let you know the results were as follows using the same .075 motor that has a speed of 1430 RPM and driving my 3.5 KVA alternator I was able to loop the motor back to one of the outlets on the alternator without loosing any speed I was then able to plug into the second outlet a bed lamp with a 75w bulb and yes they both worked.The unit I assembled has a flywheel that is unbalanced as a mater of fact its like standing in front of a fan, one of the bearings over heated and no mater how I tried I could not stop the belt slipping on the motor . so a hell of a lot of improvments could be made. I do hope you will continue to show interest in my project and any simple advice you can give me would be wellcome .Chas
Does anyone know what simple idea Chas is talking about? I am scheduling my builld of my Alernative design #2 - The 3-6-9- unit in January 2008 so any other info that can help this would be great.
to ALL
I noticed in the pulley flywheel setup that the rpm on Alternative design #2 - The 3-6-9- unit
are wrong the 6-9 pulley at B runs at only one speed see picture
the same with 6-9 at D and 3-6 on flywheel
so if you start with the generator speed then calculate the speeds going backwards
then you wind up with the speed of the motor that you will need. By the way the gen set needs about 15hp minimum to work. I do have the gen and will get bearings and pulleys at a later date and try to make this work. AND if I am wrong on my figures please speak up.
I am no expert. If need be email here (weri812 at aol.com)
thanks
wer
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 07, 2007, 04:42:29 AM
This the last message I received from Chas:
From: chas campbell
To: Patrick Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: simple test
Patrick as I told you in a recent e mail as soon as posiable I would build a unit to test using your simple idea , I am now delighted to let you know the results were as follows using the same .075 motor that has a speed of 1430 RPM and driving my 3.5 KVA alternator I was able to loop the motor back to one of the outlets on the alternator without loosing any speed I was then able to plug into the second outlet a bed lamp with a 75w bulb and yes they both worked.The unit I assembled has a flywheel that is unbalanced as a mater of fact its like standing in front of a fan, one of the bearings over heated and no mater how I tried I could not stop the belt slipping on the motor . so a hell of a lot of improvments could be made. I do hope you will continue to show interest in my project and any simple advice you can give me would be wellcome .Chas
We are doing a number of things to help Chas.
(1) Reproducing his unbalanced device in China. The Lee-Tseung theory already predicts that unbalanced rotation can lead out gravitational energy. Chas confirmed it. It is now a matter of multiple replication.
(2) Giving Chas a bearing that can stand high overheating without deforming. This bearing is another invention of Wang Shum Ho who met similar problems. The bearing essentially has multiple slits on the outer cylinder allowing for the metal to expand.
(3) The over-heating of the bearing is a demonstration of the Lead Out gravitational energy having nowhere to go in the system. Thus the external load could be appropriately increased. We are optimistic on meeting the AERO competition requirement of 72 hours with 1KW output - even with the existing Chas device.
This post will be repeated in the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory thread. Please post your comments there.
Lawrence Tseung
Helping Chas win the AERO competition Leads Out International Cooperation.
@weri812
Thanks first for your advance PM and for following through with your corrections directly on the thread so others can see it. I had my figures all crunched on a spreadsheet and had done these very late at night.
It's funny, out of all the posts on Chas' thread, I think there may have been 5 on the actual gearing. Glad to see yours at this stage since I will be trying this soon.
Actually, the numbers look great using a standard 1800 rpm 60hz giving the needed 3600 rpm. At 1800 rpm, the drive will use maximum torque and at 3600 rpm, this is perfect 60hz production level. The magic of 3-6-9.
What's so good about this configuration is that generator drag (E) can reach the pulleys at (D) but will have a hard time stopping the Wheel at (C) because the 9" will try to stop the 6" that will have the advantage.
The startup may be difficult and may require a manual push on the flywheel to reduce start up amperage, but once this baby gets going, watch out.
If you are planning a 10kwatt gen, the bearings and pulleys should be on minimum 1" shafts, maybe even 1 1/4" shafts. Pulleys could be with toothed belts. Everything has to be well bolted and the flywheel structure should be extremely strong, possibly caged.
Again, good call. I appreciate it.
wattsup
@wattsup and weri
Hi...what will be the goal of this 3-6-9 machine? Are you expecting the thing to put out more energy than it takes in? If so, I'm curious what the theory is...is it strictly the series of false claims that Charles Campbell has made (all of which that have been tested have been found absolutely no where near truth) or is there some other reason to put effort into such a machine?
Charles' latest claim of having built and operated a successful self-running version is completely unverified and only a report, so far. If you recall, the last set of claims Charles made that his machine drew 800W and produced 3500W were absolutely disproven and the truth was that it drew over 1400W just to run with no load and could not even put out 1000W for ten seconds!
His claim of having a self-running perpetual motion wheel based on pool balls was equally fraudulent and the design not only failed to run in practice but was easily proven to be unworkable in principal as well...even given a frictionless and loss-free ideal situation, there was no evidence of net torque or overbalance.
So, I am wondering what it is that keeps people willing to spend endless time and effort and money discussing, planning, building and speculating on this idea of motor-pullies-flywheel-pullies-generator as a smart idea for getting "overunity" operation. How do you expect to combine a bunch of lossy elements in straight mechanical series and come up with an overall energy gain? The only thing you'll get is energy storage and that will be at a considerable loss overall. Not to mention noisy, bulky, heavy, maintenance-hungry and dangerous. Oh, did I leave out expensive?
If you want to store energy in a flywheel; great! Just be careful...it's dangerous...and expect to lose some of the energy you put in...a significant amount based on the design you show here. I would guesstimate the overall losses will probably be at least 40% and probably more.
Please tell me if you think I'm wrong and, of course, why you believe that. Thanks...
Linda
G'day Linda, I give you:
The Secret Of The 3-6-9 Machine
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2487.0%3Battach%3D14156%3Bimage&hash=e41a0bb261ab18cac46f30e9c08c95d94b3bfd8b)
You really don't know much about fadic addition and numerology do you Linda dear?
Fadic addition (also referred to as "digiting down").
Simply add all the numbers together. If the sum is a double digit number, reduce it until you arrive at a single digit number. Zeros don't count.
Example: 19563 = 1+9+5+6+3 = 24 = 2+4 = 6 So 19563 becomes 6 by fadic addition, Get it??
This enables numerologists to reduce everything in life to a number between 1 and 9 and make predictions or by clever use of these numbers do extraordinary things.
Now we are getting to the 3-6-9 design.
3+6+9 = 18 = 1+8 = 9 So nine is the key number of the machine
The motor runs at 1800 revolutions 1+8 = 9
The next shaft with two pulleys runs at 900 revolutions = 9
The flywheel runs at 2700 revolutions 2+7 = 9
The next set of pulley run at 1800 revolutions 1+8 = 9
The generator runs at 3600 revolutions 3+6 = 9
The flywheel is 18 inches in diameter. yes, you guessed it 1+8 = 9
See it is a nine machine, it will definitely work because of it.
Hans von Lieven
Ahhhh...enlightenment at last! Let me see...five nines is 45 is 4+5 is...hot damn....9! Okay then. Not only that, but that makes six nines and that's 54 which, again, is...5+4=9! And that makes seven nines, which is...63...oh, my God! And that makes eight nines which is 72...this is a danged miracle! Let's see...nine nines is...Oh, my Lord and Savior! 81! Dare I test this further?
Now I know that I have found the secret to all the universe for sure and I am finally and certainly able to accomplish all manner of heretofore impossible things. Hans and all...I am eternally grateful for your impartation of this ancient wisdom. I feel I must now give something back to the world...
Gee...maybe I could make something fantastic. I have some of those new Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coins made from 99999 fine gold. If I follow the advice of Lawrence Tseung and drill an axle-hole a bit off-center in a few of them (9?) maybe I can combine this 9 thing with the new "Wobbly-Flywheel Lead-Out" theory and it will take off spinning at an incredible radial velocity with unimaginable torque. Why, of course it would...it would have to!
I figure I should be able to hook it up to a 9hp generator and get at least 99,999 Watts of continuous output power, utilizing my own newly-discovered Damiani Opto-mystic Multiplier principal. I hope I can get one or nine of those special high-temperature Tseung expansion bearings that can handle and absorb the excess power when I can't find a load to accept it. Let's see...hmmmm...maybe I can beat Charles, Ash, Gaby, Lawrence, Patrick Kelly and Ms. Forever to the punch and collect that $5,200,000 AERO prize myself!
Let the replications begin! That should be enough information, I would surmise, for the average OU.com replicator to get started on the project. How's that for open source, folks?
By the way, everyone, I have some 99999 fine gold Maple Leaf coins for sale that have been especially treated using Orgone Aetherization Frequency (OAF) magnets and Beardini Ultra Neutronic Kinesis (BUNK) energy waves! I guess I could let some go for, oh, maybe $1800 each. I might even discount that for quantities of nine...say $15,111 for nine (1+5+1+1+1=9). Just PM me for payment and delivery details!
Of course, I cannot guarantee overunity because you will be responsible for drilling your own holes and, of course, the proper bearings.
Linda Damiani
@linda933
Hans' depiction is correct but the main point is keeping advantage on the drive side.
Chas' original design does not have bearings on the drive and generator pulley so both of them will suffer from direct side stress on the motor bearings. First mistake. Then his design lacks the section "D", so his generator is directly on a 2.5" wheel connected directly to the flywheel, second mistake. So when the generator gives drag, it is directly pushed to the flywheel and then to the other side. So Chas' design favors the generator, where the 3-6-9 design favors the drive.
These differences alone warrant trials in my view. The investment will always be there in anything you undertake. I already ave motors and generators so what's a few gears and some structure.
All this was covered on the first pages of the Chas' flywheel thread months ago, but again, funny thing no one wanted to talk gears.
Also, the other trick is to use a smaller drive and larger generator and not to run the generator at full potential, meaning just take enough to loop the system and some small extra. This is the only point here. We're not looking to light up Manhattan.
So even if this design comes very close to OU without breaking the barrier, there then leaves room for better drive and generator choice, RV potentials, etc., and maybe then Honk or others could jump in with some fancy circuit control.
Like I said on the outset of this thread, Chas' designs may not work, but there is a foundation there that has potential to be explored. Plus, if you ask me, there are many who are trying this right now. Jesse McQueen is hard at work putting out his patented demo unit as we speak and it relies on gears also.
And imagine. @weri812 had the insight to go all the way back to the beginning of the threads to find the design. Crunch the numbers and make these corrections. Although his corrections to the rpm does not change the 3-6-9 design, you're always better to have the right numbers. Hats off to you guy.
I still would like to know what simple idea Chas is talking about? Every bit of "applicable" info would help.
Quote from: wattsup on November 09, 2007, 08:37:54 AM
@linda933
Hans' depiction is correct but the main point is keeping advantage on the drive side.
Chas' original design does not have bearings on the drive and generator pulley so both of them will suffer from direct side stress on the motor bearings. First mistake...
ACCORDING TO LAWRENCE TSEUNG, THE WOBBLING UNBALANCED BEARING-DESTROYING FLYWHEEL IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY KEYS TO CHARLES' NEW SUCCESS! [liNDA]
...Also, the other trick is to use a smaller drive and larger generator and not to run the generator at full potential, meaning just take enough to loop the system and some small extra. This is the only point here. We're not looking to light up Manhattan.
IF YOU ACHIEVE SELF-RUNNING AND ANY SMALL AMOUNT OF USEFUL ELECTRICAL OUTPUT OR ABILITY TO DRIVE EXTERNAL ROTARY LOADS FOR A PROLONGED PERIOD OF AT LEAST SEVERAL DAYS WITHOUT DECELERATION, YOU WILL EFFECTIVELY HAVE LIT UP THE ENTIRE WORLD, IN MY OPINION. [liNDA]
So even if this design comes very close to OU without breaking the barrier, there then leaves room for better drive and generator choice, RV potentials, etc., and maybe then Honk or others could jump in with some fancy circuit control. ETERNALLY OPTIMISTIC..."HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL", THEY SAY. [liNDA]
Like I said on the outset of this thread, Chas' designs may not work, but there is a foundation there that has potential to be explored...
I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT PART...THE FOUNDATION. WAS IT WHEN HE LIED TO EVERYONE BY SHOWING THE GRAVITY WHEEL HOOKED UP TO THE FLYWHEEL MOTOR/GEN THINGY, WHEN HE DELUDED HIMSELF BY USING UNMEASURED SHORT-DURATION OUTPUT POWER PULSES, WHEN HE DECLINED TO EVEN MEASURE THE INPUT POWER AND, INSTEAD, READ IT OFF THE MOTOR NAMEPLATE, WHEN HE PAINTED EVERYTHING PRETTY COLORS, WHEN HE INSISTED THAT ONLY PULSED LOADS WOULD REVEAL THE SPECIAL OVERUNITY OPERATION OR WHEN HE GOT ASHTWETH TO BEND OVER IN FRONT OF THE WATTMETERS SHOWING EVERYONE HIS PLUMBER'S BUTT AND THUS TRYING TO DISTRACT US FROM THE METER READOUTS WHICH SHOWED 12% ENERGY EFFICIENCY?
WHICH PART WAS THE "SOLID FOUNDATION"? [liNDA]
Plus, if you ask me, there are many who are trying this right now. Jesse McQueen is hard at work putting out his patented demo unit as we speak and it relies on gears also...
ANOTHER OBVIOUS CASE OF SEVERE SELF-DELUSION AND ZERO DEMONSTRABLE FUNCTIONALITY. NEVER SHOWED A WORKING PROTOTYPE TO ANYONE, NEVER MADE A VIDEO, EVEN. [liNDA]
And imagine. @weri812 had the insight to go all the way back to the beginning of the threads to find the design. Crunch the numbers and make these corrections. Although his corrections to the rpm does not change the 3-6-9 design, you're always better to have the right numbers. Hats off to you guy. YES...HATS OFF...DEFINITELY...LOVE THOSE NINES! THAT MUST BE THE KEY THAT WILL MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN, BUT I LIKE MY SOLID GOLD APPROACH BETTER...SO MUCH SMALLER AND LIGHTER! [liNDA]
I still would like to know what simple idea Chas is talking about? Every bit of "applicable" info would help.
WELL, LAWRENCE TSEUNG SAYS ITS THE WOBBLY FLYWHEEL AND SPECIAL FIRE-PROOF BEARINGS. HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THAT?
CHARLES' MAIN NEW SIMPLE IDEA, I THINK, IS THIS: WAIT UNTIL NO ONE IS AROUND, SNEAK INTO THE WORKSHOP, DO NOT TAKE YOUR VIDEO CAMERA WITH YOU, COME OUT A HALF HOUR LATER, WRITE AN EMAIL TO PATRICK KELLY AND PROCLAIM SELF-RUNNING SUCCESS PLUS 75W EXTRA. THEN TELL ABOUT HOW THE MACHINE MELTED DOWN DUE TO IMBALANCED FLYWHEEL AND MELTED BEARINGS JUST TO MAKE SURE NO ONE CAN ASK FOR A VIDEO OR LIVE DEMO! SEE HOW SIMPLE THAT IS? [liNDA]
EVERYONE SAID HE WAS A GENIUS...NOW THERE IS NO DOUBT!
@linda933
Like I said. Nobody wants to talk technical gears, motion, inertia. The whole Chas threads are full off the same crap you just "lead out". So obvioiusly, there is a difference between someone who has actually built systems and someone who has obviously not held a screwdriver in their hands.
So you think we don't know the odds, we do not realize the challenge, we do not appreciate the difficulty. So when fishermen leave the port, you are the only one who knows there could be huge and dangerous waves in the coming days. And those fishermen are just blind assholes wallking into danger.
What you are saying is totally rediculous. So thank you very much for being as helpful as your mind allows. Now we know.
Quote from: wattsup on November 09, 2007, 11:55:45 AM
@linda933
Like I said. Nobody wants to talk technical gears, motion, inertia. The whole Chas threads are full off the same crap you just "lead out". So obvioiusly, there is a difference between someone who has actually built systems and someone who has obviously not held a screwdriver in their hands.
So you think we don't know the odds, we do not realize the challenge, we do not appreciate the difficulty. So when fishermen leave the port, you are the only one who knows there could be huge and dangerous waves in the coming days. And those fishermen are just blind assholes wallking into danger.
What you are saying is totally rediculous. So thank you very much for being as helpful as your mind allows. Now we know.
Yes, it is rather remarkable how, in only a couple of paragraphs, you now know all there is to know about Linda, from my ability to properly hold a screwdriver to my level of practical experience in design and building machinery. You are truly remarkable in your perceptive abilities. How do you do it?
If these fishermen are walking, as you suggest, then it is a high probability they will drown unless they have all mastered the famous "water-walking" technique. Storm or calm!
I do indeed feel like the long-suffering wife being left on shore as her husband and his fisherman brothers march determinedly and bravely for the seven hundred sixty-third time into a small but deep fresh water lake fully rigged for harpooning blue whales. "But Dear Husband" she cries one more time..."there are no whales in the lake! Take nets, not harpoons! Seek small fish, not whales!".
The hardy men pay no heed to the foolish wench, of course and, those who return always come back empty handed, spent and with great tales of the sea monsters who drove away the whales once again.
Linda
P.S. Here is a hint: Gears and pullies are analogous to transformers. You can increase torque at the expense of speed or vice versa. Like a transformer can increase Voltage at the expense of Current or vice versa. Power, in either case, is the product of speed x torque or voltage x current and remains constant except for the inescapable losses. In the case of your approach, I guarantee you will gain no power by gearing or using pullies and your losses will be large in all regards: time, money, noise, heat, wasted energy, frustration, etc.
You may store energy inertially in any moving mass, of course, but you nor Charles Campbell nor Lawrence Tseung nor anyone else have suggested any actual working theory as to how, when or why any increase in overall energy from input to output should be expected from a system such as you and they describe. Nor has anyone ever demonstrated such, nor will they in the future.
Keep in mind as you hurl your insults at me: I asked you a simple enough question...What is the basis for your belief that you might gain free energy from a system of gears, motors, generators and flywheels? What is it you refer to as Charles Campbell's worthwhile "foundation" or principal of operation or theory? You moan and whine and insult me about no one wanting to talk good solid physics here...well? Tell us the physics theory of how you expect or hope to get freee energy out of this design, can you? Please? You can't, of course, without resorting to utter nonsense and meaningless babble like Tseung, can you?
Build random ideas without any understanding of basic mechanics or guiding theory or working principals forever if you please. No amount of effort or altruistic hopeful belief will cause a set of gears and flywheel to amplify energy...Sorry.
It would be far far wiser to forever attempt to lift yourself into graceful flight by tugging upon your own buttocks, truly. It wastes fewer precious material resources, costs less and, yes, you guessed it...the worst danger is you become an even bigger asshole! Now you've got me expecting the impossible!
Linda
@linda933
First of all you're the one throwing the stones.
Second of all, you talk of impossible and the futility of trying. Poor you.
Yet, for months on end you have been on this Forum bashing people left and right, trying to put some "sense" into their all ignorant minds, since you hold the true knowledge. So after so many months, you know now that it is "impossible. to disuade people from this task, and especially from people on this Forum.
So if anyone here is running after the impossible, intangible, unaccessible, it is clearly you and not I or those others here who "do give a damn". So you be happy pursuing your impossibilites and leave us to pursue ours. Could not be more simple then that.
Still no answer, huh? You have none, do you. I understand. You're afraid if you were to force yourself to think hard enough to actually state your theory or even a good hint at it or to put into words what you think the foundation of Charles' machine consists of...that you would be forced to realize in your own mind just how silly and nonsensical it really is.
That's okay...I'm glad I was able to help you fully realize that your endeavors have nothing to do with science or physics but rather form "a belief system" based on pure hope and strict avoidance of all critical thought. Congratulations. You have earned the rank of True Believer!
By the way, I am enjoying this very much and I really hope you are, too. It's easy to enjoy and learn when you do not get all frustrated expecting the impossible to happen, isn't it? Cheers!
Linda
The "help to Chas Campbell win the AERO competition" will be continued at:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=399#399
Quote
Since the overunity.com forum has too much disruption from debunkers, I shall use this forum (forum.go-here. nl) where I have moderator privilege for the discussion.
Please note that I would modify or delete any post without prior notice.
(1) Chas Campbell did a simple test. After his input motor finished spinning the wheels to the designed speed, he disconnected the input motor. The wheels continued to spin at approximately the same speed.
(2) He then connected the wheels to the output alternator and a 75 Watt light bulb. The light bulb continued to light for long periods (beyond what is expected as storage energy by the flywheel effect.)
(3) One of his bearings over-heated. He could not cool it by an external fan. He needed a bearing that could stand the high temperature.
The Lee-Tseung Lead-Out theory predicted that unbalanced rotation could Lead Out gravitational energy. The three stage Chas wheels with pulley and belts could be considered as cascading unbalanced wheels.
The spinning to high speed first allowed a high lead-out rate of gravitational energy. The overheating is a result of the excess energy having nowhere to go.
The chance of modifying the Chas device to meet the AERO competition condition of 72 hours at 1 KW is very good.
We shall work with others to help Chas win the AERO competition.
Lawrence Tseung
Disruption from know-it-all debunkers Lead Out use of moderator privilege by Tseung
QuoteIt would be far far wiser to forever attempt to lift yourself into graceful flight by tugging up on your own buttocks, truly. It wastes fewer precious material resources, costs less and, yes, you guessed it...the worst and only danger is you become an even bigger asshole!
Lawrence, I am thrilled and honored that you have taken my advice above. May your flight be graceful and eternal and may your hind quarters and hands remain tensely balanced in eternal levitational bliss.
What? You can't answer a straightforward question without hiding behind censorship and "moderator privileges"? My God, man. And you expect people to accept your leadership into the age of free energy? Sounds like Chairman Mao to me, my friend! Give Che a big kiss for me, Chairman Larry!
I shall never follow where leaders lead out blatant censorship to hide from honest questions. Many lemmings will swim into your net happily and I'm sure you will be very pleased where all voices sing your praises in harmony and never venture to query.
Linda
Better a Debunker than an Arch E-Bunker...apologies to Carrol O'Conner
Sorry Lawrence,
What is all this debunker's crap??
If there is nothing to debunk, no debunkers!
Q.E.D.
which means, in case you don't know, Quod erat demonstrandum. I leave the translation to you, since someone your age with an M.Sc. acquired in England is bound to have learned the language.
Hans von Lieven
Cetero censeo Lawrence esse delendam. (Cato the elder, well, sort of)
Too Freakin' Che (Oh, that's French, I guess...never mind)
For those who follow the great LT to his Domain of Utter Monotonic Babble...(DUMB)...I say only:
Caveat Emptor!
et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis!
Hans
Sed libera nos a Lawrence
This is all Greek to me...or, well...latin.
Bill
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
Ted:
Igree 100%. If we knew everything, there would be nothing new to discover...and we ain't there yet.
Bill
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
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
"You can call this futile flight all you want to, but you will never really know until you personally explore the phenomenon."
WHAT PHENOMENON? I KEEP ASKING, BUT GET NO ANSWER! THE ONLY PHENOMENA I SEE ASSOCIATED WITH CHARLES CAMPBELL'S CLAIMS AND DEVICES ARE SELF AND GROUP DELUSION, OUTRIGHT FRAUD AND ENDLESS WISHFUL THINKING. THOSE ARE WHAT I'M "PERSONALLY EXPLORING" UNTIL SOMEONE ANSWERS THE QUESTION!
"You can call this futile flight all you want to, but you will never really know until you personally explore the phenomenon."
This (oft-expressed here) stupid idea flies directly in the face of the essence of learning and accumulation of built-up knowledge. It more than implies, yes it actually demands, that nothing learned by anyone else prior, regardless of how many times, no matter how well proven or demonstrated or disproven and eliminated by how many learned experimenters, none of prior learned knowledge is valid, ever! That suggests; no...it plainly states...that everything must be learned only from personal experimentation. That's just plain arrogant and dumb, my friend! Absolutely stupid statement.
"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."
No...I don't ridicule those who are trying something new. I ridicule those who keep trying things that are so well known not to have any chance of working, like the Charles Campbell or Jesse McQueen (or any other contraption of motors. generators, gears, pullies and flywheels), that it defies all reason to keep trying. To me, it is just as intuitively obvious that these silly ideas can never work as it is obvious that I shall never be able to lift myself into the sky with my own hands tugging on my bottom.
Do you really picture a mechanical contraption put together with off-the-shelf standard motors. dynamos and mechanical transmission elements suddenly taking off and running itself? It's not even learned physics I rely on to discard such utterly dumb hopes...it's just the same basic common sense everyday knowledge of the way things work...same way i know the butt-tugging won't work.
I just can't believe people who claim to have some gray matter and savvy about technical physical things can buy into such totally idiotic delusions as the Charles Campbell or Jesse McQueen frauds any more than they would believe it if they were told someone had lifted their own butt into smooth and free flight by tugging upward.
To answer your question as to why I'm here...I just have to say there are two reasons:
1. It is extremely amusing and enlightening in regard to human folly, the psychology of deception, belief, faith and hope. The avoidance of critical thinking and the invention of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo in an ego-driven sociological group psychology setting is fascinating to me. Look at how many words have been said here in response to my simple question, yet still, no one answers!
2. I like to look for any really new developments that could possibly provide overunity, despite my present belief that none ever have or will be found. Is that okay with you? I study engineering and psychology and I find sorting through the posts here and stimulating certain responses to be educational and fascinating. Thanks!
Linda
Quote from: P-Motion on November 17, 2007, 10:40:16 AM
@Linda,
I got into to this because I thought finding out the reason why it is not possible would give me something to do. You know, instead of doing crossword puzzles, I studied and analyzed this behavior.
Lots and lots of math later, I realized a basic requiremnet of a perpetual wheel. Momentum needs to be generated while balance is pursued. And this would be the mass generating the momentum.
Is this supposed to be profound? "Momentum needs to be generated while balance is pursued"? And monkeys need to fly out of my ass! What are you saying? Anything? More blather...circular semantics.
Are you trying to say that a flywheel in itself "generates" momentum? What generates the momentum is the energy you put into the flywheel. And, no matter how you do it, you will never be able to take more out than you put in. Otherwise, flywheels would spin up on their own without limit and explode once the velocity-induced forces exceeded the physical integrity. It is the very Laws of Energy Conservation that keeps all this stuff usefully bounded in the realm of reality.
Linda
Quote from: linda933 on November 17, 2007, 02:18:08 AM
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.
It is debunkers like you who are having a chilling effect on self-powered flight research. Your attempts at ridiculing this area of study are exactly what Big Air wants. Can you imagine what would happen if we had self-powered flight? All the airlines would go out of business and there would be financial collapse. The powers that be, including President Bush and Dick Cheney, who all have considerable stock holdings in airlines, are already doing all they can to suppress self-powered flight. Are you on their payroll?
Let me be the first to say NO, we will not be suppressed. With enough open source community effort, we will have self-powered flight. Then, we will have a truly free world where people are free to go where they please, and the government cannot shut down air travel on a whim (look at what happened after the fake 9/11 event - did you ever stop to think what was so important that day that the government had to ground all planes?). This is why government does not want self-powered flight: the FAA would not be able to control travel and keep tabs on our citizenry, as they fly from state to state.
It is well known already that in parts of Asia, there has been considerable progress into self-powered flight. Mainstream media are of course too vested with the airline industry to report anything about this, and any leaks are written off as silly Aladdin magic carpet fantasies, but do not be fooled. There are many websites dedicated to spreading the truth about self-powered flight. Open your mind.
Why do you think that when the government faked 9/11, they put Middle Eastern "terrorists" on planes? Why would Middle Eastern people need to be on planes if they already had self-powered flight? It does not make sense, does it? Think. Connect the dots. It is a plot to convince us that there is no self-powered flight in the Middle East.
Please, do not spread disinformation here. Big Air can pull the wool over the sheeple in the rest of the world, but not here.
@ShruggedAtlas
ohhh...hummm...guess I'm busted, eh? Should I admit now that i'm paid by "Big Air"? Hilarious post, for a lawyer! LOL
I really did astrally project once, but I wasn't tugging on my own butt at the time. It was like dreaming, but I was awake and the places I went were later verified as appearing as I saw them. And my physical bod was left behind, thus no laws of physics were violated.
I still say all this talk about self-powered butt-tugging flight is pure Humbug!
Linda
Quote from: P-Motion on November 17, 2007, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: linda933 on November 17, 2007, 10:50:45 AM
So why do some here continue to believe there is a sound foundation of possibilities here?
I study engineering and psychology and I find sorting through the posts here and stimulating certain responses to be educational and fascinating. Thanks!
Linda
Linda, I think you're alright. Why do I think it is possible ? Math. Engineering and science are both based on them.
So when I look at a specific design and apply the laws of physics and see momentum is generated, why not try it ?
It could be that because some people say it is impossible that people who do try it, over complicate it.
When I was in the Navy, they taught us the KISS principle. It is something that I have remembered.
But just like anything else, to become familiar with something new takes time.
If you take the time to read pequaides thread, you might find it interesting. But haven't seen you comment yet :))
I think you're alright, too. Maybe not the sharpest axe in the shed, but alright. I may be even duller, myself. For instance, I have no clue what you are tryng to say when you say: "when I look at a specific design and apply the laws of physics and see momentum is generated".
What does that mean...momentum is generated? That happens every time anything changes velocity relative to anything else in the universe. To me, it says nothing at all about any specific situation or theory, since it is a totally and vastly unqualified and generally a semantically logically circular, meaningless statement.
But what else is new? Illogic and mumbled jargon seems to be behind about 99% of the "research" being done on this forum and 100% on this particular thread!
Link me to this ??pesqualy?? thread you recommend...I'm ready!
Linda
double post...deleted
Hi Linda,
I appreciate your candor in admitting you are here for your own amusement. Do you also frequent religious sites and shower them with derogatory comments about their faith? Do you get off by ridiculing little kids for believing in Santa Clause?
Nobody here owes you anything, least of all any sort of justification for what they believe. If I want to believe that Chas Campbell is the second coming of Christ it's none of your concern.
campbel gravity motor model, seems that it have to work
i have made a simple test in Working model software
test2.gif and test3.gif are animated
it is 3.6 not 6.3 in the test3
Quote from: Eddy Currentz on November 17, 2007, 09:44:25 AM
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
Milkovic had me baffled for awhile as well. The best way to think of it is comparing a 409 pump bottle to a bug sprayer. The bug sprayer has to use built-up air pressure to push the fluid out of the bottle but the 409 pump bottle has to be repeatidly pumped, and pumped hard. The bug sprayer is not over unity....just easier for that particular application.
Rich
Quote from: oouthere on November 20, 2007, 09:19:44 PM
Milkovic had me baffled for awhile as well. The best way to think of it is comparing a 409 pump bottle to a bug sprayer. The bug sprayer has to use built-up air pressure to push the fluid out of the bottle but the 409 pump bottle has to be repeatidly pumped, and pumped hard. The bug sprayer is not over unity....just easier for that particular application.
Rich
The interesting thing about the Milkovic machine is how the power is generated. When the pendulum swings down it lifts the weight on the other side of the lever. When the pendulum swings back up, the weight comes down.
Milkovic says that there is no effect on pendulum from the secondary. I don't really agree with that statement. When the weight comes down, it lifts the pendulum's axis of rotation up. This transfers energy back and adds it to the swing of the pendulum. Then the pendulum swings down and picks up the weight, thereby transferring the energy again.
So, why is this mechanism any different from a simple teeter totter?
The power in the system is generated in the down swing of the pendulum. Centrifugal force is generated which exerts force on the axis of rotation, pulling the lever down. This then effectively increases the radius of the pendulum's arc and slows the pendulum down. As the pendulum starts back up on it arc, the weight on the other end of the lever pushes down, lifting the axis of rotation back up. This movement decreases the radius of the arc of the pendulum and speeds it up.
Angular velocity has varied throughout the swing, but angular momentum has been conserved because the original axis of rotation is restored. The centrifugal force generated by the pendulum has done most of the work. This is where the power gain is generated.
A relatively small amount of power is required to keep the pendulum swinging compared to the work being done in the secondary. I see centrifugal force being utilized while still conserving angular momentum as the key to this mechanism. It still is going to require a lot of experimentation and study to fully understand all the parameters and nuances involved, but I think it has a lot of potential.
Has anyone replicated this "Chas campbell free power box".....if not why not? Questions,questions .This machine ,if it was real, should be available by now. Has anyone recieved enough information from the inventor to even start to really understand how it works?
What is going to happen here is that some kind of Chas cult will start when the posts reach a critical mass
Has anyone replicated this "Chas campbell free power box".....if not why not? Questions,questions .This machine ,if it was real, should be available by now. Has anyone recieved enough information from the inventor to even start to really understand how it works?
What is going to happen here is that some kind of Chas cult will start when the posts reach a critical mass
Quote from: mapsrg on November 23, 2007, 03:47:33 PM
Has anyone replicated this "Chas campbell free power box".....if not why not? Questions,questions .This machine ,if it was real, should be available by now. Has anyone recieved enough information from the inventor to even start to really understand how it works?
What is going to happen here is that some kind of Chas cult will start when the posts reach a critical mass
Are you seriously asking this? The Chas Campbell devices do not work for elementary reasons. Therefore, no working machine is available now, nor will it ever be available, and no amount of information from the inventor will make this possible. Also, no Chas cult is in the works.
Thanks,some of the posts you read make you believe something has happened here
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 04:50:48 PM
Are you seriously asking this? The Chas Campbell devices do not work for elementary reasons. Therefore, no working machine is available now, nor will it ever be available, and no amount of information from the inventor will make this possible. Also, no Chas cult is in the works.
my model says that it can work
what is wrong with my model?
it is a serius question
You probably put more real effort into your model than Chas.If you know you can make it work from the modelling take it to the next level.....
Quote from: utilitarian on November 23, 2007, 04:50:48 PM
Quote from: mapsrg on November 23, 2007, 03:47:33 PM
Has anyone replicated this "Chas campbell free power box".....if not why not? Questions,questions .This machine ,if it was real, should be available by now. Has anyone recieved enough information from the inventor to even start to really understand how it works?
What is going to happen here is that some kind of Chas cult will start when the posts reach a critical mass
Are you seriously asking this? The Chas Campbell devices do not work for elementary reasons. Therefore, no working machine is available now, nor will it ever be available, and no amount of information from the inventor will make this possible. Also, no Chas cult is in the works.
Don't be so sure.
With free energy I am sure this site will come up with the goods with so many different views/inputs.You never know what will happen and its all good to the max.
Its very clear that Linda = Humbugger.
Linda certainly is NOT a Woman. Most woman of intelligence actually have class
and respect for themselves, and others... and would never speak the kinds
of words that are posted here.
Not only that, but they are not like men. They see that arguments of such nature are
purely a waste of time. Time which they could be useing to do something much more
productive.
Its a waste to even respond to Linda. Dont bother responding to these people who
are obviously fighting everything posted... and attacking others for no good reason.
Do your own research, and make your conclusions based on your own discoveries,
and not what other strangers put forth. As you never know who is leading you
down the wrong path.
If you fail, its your own responsibility. We can all accept our failures. What we
dont have to accept, are people telling us what we can or can not do. What is
and what is not possible. They are not the Creators of the Universe, and being that
they dont know everything, or how it all works.. they are as clueless as anyone else.
At one time, people believed the world was flat. Luckily, not everyone believed
that, and followed thru on their own person investigations.
We also used to think Asbestos was the greatest stuff on earth.. and look
how wrong we were.
Quantum Physics? Almost anyone would have told you that you were nuts
if you raised such concepts before. But here it is.
I could go on and on. But again, dont be swayed, nor waste your efforts on
futile arguments with these Ego driven maniacs that have no respect, no class, no
souls.
Quote from: zero on November 24, 2007, 06:01:24 AM
Its very clear that Linda = Humbugger.
Linda certainly is NOT a Woman. Most woman of intelligence actually have class
and respect for themselves, and others... and would never speak the kinds
of words that are posted here.
Not only that, but they are not like men. They see that arguments of such nature are
purely a waste of time. Time which they could be useing to do something much more
productive.
Its a waste to even respond to Linda. Dont bother responding to these people who
are obviously fighting everything posted... and attacking others for no good reason.
Do your own research, and make your conclusions based on your own discoveries,
and not what other strangers put forth. As you never know who is leading you
down the wrong path.
If you fail, its your own responsibility. We can all accept our failures. What we
dont have to accept, are people telling us what we can or can not do. What is
and what is not possible. They are not the Creators of the Universe, and being that
they dont know everything, or how it all works.. they are as clueless as anyone else.
At one time, people believed the world was flat. Luckily, not everyone believed
that, and followed thru on their own person investigations.
We also used to think Asbestos was the greatest stuff on earth.. and look
how wrong we were.
Quantum Physics? Almost anyone would have told you that you were nuts
if you raised such concepts before. But here it is.
I could go on and on. But again, dont be swayed, nor waste your efforts on
futile arguments with these Ego driven maniacs that have no respect, no class, no
souls.
Ad Hominem attack. Look it up. When you have no argument nor any answer to the question, you attack the person. I'm not trying to get followers, nor am I an ego-driven maniac, nor a person you knew as Humbugger nor a man. I never thought the world was flat, am not fighting anything and have never thought asbestos was great.
Why doesn't anyone even try to answer my simple, straightforward question? Why does even asking such a question bring out such bitter personal attacks and hatred?
If you recall, I just asked what anyone who is optimistic about getting free energy from off-the-shelf motor/generator systems with gears pullies and flywheels might be thinking! What is the basis, the foundation, the proposed principal, the theory of operation? It is clear no one here has any answer, but that many deeply resent the question being asked. Seems like maybe some of you have some serious emotional problems and attachments to ideas you cannot justify with any logical thoughts.
I can accept that...you think it might work because you want it to work and because all of science and mechanics and dynamics proves it can't work. And you hate the existing body of hard-learned knowledge. I cannot count how many have insisted that the only true knowledge of anything must be learned by yourself. Why, if that is truly your philosophy, would you partake in a forum such as this?
Linda
Quote from: Eddy Currentz on November 17, 2007, 02:04:59 PM
Hi Linda,
I appreciate your candor in admitting you are here for your own amusement. Do you also frequent religious sites and shower them with derogatory comments about their faith? Do you get off by ridiculing little kids for believing in Santa Clause?
Nobody here owes you anything, least of all any sort of justification for what they believe. If I want to believe that Chas Campbell is the second coming of Christ it's none of your concern.
You are correct. Nobody owes me any explanation of anything. I find many beliefs to be unfounded and ridiculous, religion, personal delusion, etc. I spend a little time commenting here because there is a pretense of doing scientific research in an environment that vehemently rejects the scientific method and the entire body of knowledge it has produced!
I find that fascinating. I ask questions that make many here extremely uncomfortable and bring forth buckets of bitter hatred, it appears. I am personally attacked and insulted after nearly every post. I find all of that to be very interesting, especially when my posts ask simple straight questions and never get any answers.
Certainly everyone here can believe and express belief in anything they like. I'm also free to inquire as to why they believe it. If people who ask questions about why you believe something make you so very uncomfortable and angry that you feel like viciously attacking them, it is you who are standing on shaky ground, I'd say. Surely, there is no science done without someone asking pointed questions!
Linda
@linda933,
QuoteIf you recall, I just asked what anyone who is optimistic about getting free energy from off-the-shelf motor/generator systems with gears pullies and flywheels might be thinking! What is the basis, the foundation, the proposed principal, the theory of operation? It is clear no one here has any answer, but that many deeply resent the question being asked. Seems like maybe some of you have some serious emotional problems and attachments to ideas you cannot justify with any logical thoughts.
It isn?t true that no one here has any answer to your question. The answer to your question is this: the basis, the foundation, the proposed principle, the theory of operation lies in the proper overlaying of conservative fields such that one field assists the other along part of a closed loop. As is well known, although the integral of work done along a closed loop in a conservative field is zero, the same integral along part of the loop isn?t. A telling example of this principle is the production of excess energy (energy out of nothing) in SMOT. Indeed, the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball along A-B is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop when traveling along the rest B-C-A of it. This is in clear violation of CoE and is due to the proper superposition of conservative fields. Speaking of scientific method, as you require, that?s rigorous, scientific and conclusive.
Along the same line of producing excess energy, thus violating CoE, you may seek the explanation when conservative fields of the same type (not as in SMOT of different types), say only magnetic or only gravitational, are superimposed properly. These are the cases discussed in this thread. One thing you have to be careful about, though: while, say, in SMOT we have one object (the steel ball) floating in two fields, in the cases discussed here we have multiple objects, constrained mechanically, floating in a single field. Hope you see the analogy. Also, you can remember that when considering thermodynamics we always treat equilibrium states (close to equilibrium Prigogine?s non-equilibrium thermodynamics notwithstanding). In the cases we?re discussing the equilibrium is continuously sought but is never reached. It will be reached but somewhere in the infinity.
Remember also this, it isn?t a proper application of the scientific method if you?re seeking to abolish experimental results by theoretical arguments based on the current understanding. Science works just the other way around.
I?ll also mention something that really puzzled me this Summer when I visited personally Veljko Milkovic in Novi Sad, Serbia not so much in terms of obtaining more energy than energy spent (that still remains open as far as that device is concerned, I think) but in terms of an apparent violation of Newton?s third law. Consider an observer on the side of the lever opposite to the side where the pendulum is attached. Let there be a screen which won?t allow that observer to see what?s happening on the side of the lever where the pendulum is. The device demonstrates that there will not be a way for the said observer to tell just by looking at the lever going up and down whether this movement is caused just by lifting the opposite side of the lever up and down, pendulum not swinging, or it is caused by the swaying of the pendulum. There is an analytical solution of the forward problem: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Pendulum/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf (although one may question the approximations) but I haven't seen analytical solution of the reverse problem I just described. It would be interesting to see whether or not this lack of symmetry is inherent in the existent mechanics.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 12:27:10 PM
@linda933,
QuoteIf you recall, I just asked what anyone who is optimistic about getting free energy from off-the-shelf motor/generator systems with gears pullies and flywheels might be thinking! What is the basis, the foundation, the proposed principal, the theory of operation? It is clear no one here has any answer, but that many deeply resent the question being asked. Seems like maybe some of you have some serious emotional problems and attachments to ideas you cannot justify with any logical thoughts.
It isn?t true that no one here has any answer to your question. The answer to your question is this: the basis, the foundation, the proposed principle, the theory of operation lies in the proper overlaying of conservative fields such that one field assists the other along part of a closed loop. As is well known, although the integral of work done along a closed loop in a conservative field is zero, the same integral along part of the loop isn?t. A telling example of this principle is the production of excess energy (energy out of nothing) in SMOT. Indeed, the energy (mgh1 ? (Ma ? Mb)) imparted to the ball along A-B is less than the energy (mgh1 + Mb) the ball loses upon closing the loop when traveling along the rest B-C-A of it. This is in clear violation of CoE and is due to the proper superposition of conservative fields. Speaking of scientific method, as you require, that?s rigorous, scientific and conclusive.
Along the same line of producing excess energy, thus violating CoE, you may seek the explanation when conservative fields of the same type (not as in SMOT of different types), say only magnetic or only gravitational, are superimposed properly. These are the cases discussed in this thread. One thing you have to be careful about, though: while, say, in SMOT we have one object (the steel ball) floating in two fields, in the cases discussed here we have multiple objects, constrained mechanically, floating in a single field. Hope you see the analogy. Also, you can remember that when considering thermodynamics we always treat equilibrium states (close to equilibrium Prigogine?s non-equilibrium thermodynamics notwithstanding). In the cases we?re discussing the equilibrium is continuously sought but is never reached. It will be reached but somewhere in the infinity.
Remember also this, it isn?t a proper application of the scientific method if you?re seeking to abolish experimental results by theoretical arguments based on the current understanding. Science works just the other way around.
I?ll also mention something that really puzzled me this Summer when I visited personally Veljko Milkovic in Novi Sad, Serbia not so much in terms of obtaining more energy than energy spent (that still remains open as far as that device is concerned, I think) but in terms of an apparent violation of Newton?s third law. Consider an observer on the side of the lever opposite to the side where the pendulum is attached. Let there be a screen which won?t allow that observer to see what?s happening on the side of the lever where the pendulum is. The device demonstrates that there will not be a way for the said observer to tell just by looking at the lever going up and down whether this movement is caused just by lifting the opposite side of the lever up and down, pendulum not swinging, or it is caused by the swaying of the pendulum. There is an analytical solution of the forward problem: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Pendulum/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf (although one may question the approximations) but I haven't seen analytical solution of the reverse problem I just described. It would be interesting to see whether or not this lack of symmetry is inherent in the existent mechanics.
Nice post Omni, although I doubt it will mollify the skeptics. No true skeptic ever let the facts get in the way of a thorough debunking.
I am quite envious of you getting to meet Veljko in Serbia and seeing his machines. I have been working on variations of his designs for some time now. I would love to be able to talk to him about his theories.
As far as Newtons third law goes, that's the whole mystery here. I know how the mechanism works, and I have a fairly good theory on what is happening. But there is one thing that puzzles me. I can't figure out exactly how this extra energy is being generated. I'm pretty sure it has to do with changing the radius of the center of mass of a rotating body, I know this produces energy, but exactly why is still a mystery.
There is definitely feedback between the secondary and the primary in a Milkovic oscillator. The pendulum will certainly swing without the secondary moving, but just try taking the weight off at the top of it's lift and see how well the pendulum runs. The weight, or spring, is critical to return the pendulum to it's original axis of rotation. The energy is shifted back and forth across the fulcrum. It has to be that way in order to be an oscillator.
Cheers,
Ted
There is no violation of Newron's third law in the Milkovic demonstration. The pendulum in the Milkovic demonstration does nor swing, that is true, but it still moves up and down and right there is your equal and opposite reaction.
There are many devices in mechanics that work in one direction but will not work in reverse. Instead when the reverse is tried they will do something else.
A typical example is the worm drive.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F98%2FSchneckengetriebe02.jpg%2F300px-Schneckengetriebe02.jpg&hash=e02a7b9e12c53843413891ca82d2fd0b34b17020)
A worm is used to reduce speed. For each complete turn of the worm shaft the gear shaft advances only one tooth of the gear.
Unlike ordinary gears, the motion is not reversible, a worm can drive a gear to reduce speed but a gear cannot drive a worm to increase it. In the worm gear the equal and opposite reaction is the force with which the mechanism locks.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 24, 2007, 02:55:12 PM
There is no violation of Newron's third law in the Milkovic demonstration. The pendulum in the Milkovic demonstration does nor swing, that is true, but it still moves up and down and right there is your equal and opposite reaction.
There are many devices in mechanics that work in one direction but will not work in reverse. Instead when the reverse is tried they will do something else.
A typical example is the worm drive.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F98%2FSchneckengetriebe02.jpg%2F300px-Schneckengetriebe02.jpg&hash=e02a7b9e12c53843413891ca82d2fd0b34b17020)
A worm is used to reduce speed. For each complete turn of the worm shaft the gear shaft advances only one tooth of the gear.
Unlike ordinary gears, the motion is not reversible, a worm can drive a gear to reduce speed but a gear cannot drive a worm to increase it. In the worm gear the equal and opposite reaction is the force with which the mechanism locks.
Hans von Lieven
This is not analogous to Milkovic. In Milkovic's device the lever on the side of the observer never locks. The observer, however, cannot tell whether the pendulum on the other side is swinging or what he sees is only die to the up and down motion of the side with the pendulum. In this example, the observer on the side of the gear always knows that turning of the gear is due to the turning of the worm.
I know the lever does not lock. The analogy still stands, I merely illustrated that if the left side does something different to the right side, if reversed, this does not prove violation of Newton's third law.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 24, 2007, 03:54:58 PM
I know the lever does not lock. The analogy still stands, I merely illustrated that if the left side does something different to the right side, if reversed, this does not prove violation of Newton's third law.
Hans von Lieven
Like I said, the analogy doesn't stand. Read again what I said.
Quote from: P-Motion on November 24, 2007, 07:02:28 PM
Quote from: linda933 on November 24, 2007, 07:01:12 AM
If you recall, I just asked what anyone who is optimistic about getting free energy from off-the-shelf motor/generator systems with gears pullies and flywheels might be thinking! What is the basis, the foundation, the proposed principal, the theory of operation? Linda
Linda,
To answer your question, most people don't understand the law, Conservation of Momentum.
Most attempts fail because they try to violate this law. Quite simply, using a secondary axis allows for another force to act upon a body. There is your basic requirement for a principle that does allow for perpetual behavior.
ps. Happy Holidays everyone
With only a single axis system, it is bound to its' own dynamic potential. You get out what you put in.
With a secondary axis, the potential can be increased. Why ? Torque can be generated.
Secondary axis? I don't see secondary axis in the machine here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2326.0.html. How does your concept explain why that machine is working if there is no secondary axis?
Also, for machines with secondary axis, can you describe analytically (using equations).what you just explained? Would be interesting to see quantitatively how the potential can be increased with a secondary axis.
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 08:13:27 PM
Secondary axis? I don't see secondary axis in the machine here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2326.0.html. How does your concept explain why that machine is working if there is no secondary axis?
Omnibus, if you think that machine is real, you are a world class sucker. Though I have to say, if you fell for the "expensife" spinny screw drum, I suppose you will believe anything.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 24, 2007, 08:24:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 08:13:27 PM
Secondary axis? I don't see secondary axis in the machine here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2326.0.html. How does your concept explain why that machine is working if there is no secondary axis?
Omnibus, if you think that machine is real, you are a world class sucker. Though I have to say, if you fell for the "expensife" spinny screw drum, I suppose you will believe anything.
Aha, so now it's not the secondary axis but that the machine isn't real. Make up your mind first before playing the role of a "skeptic".
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 08:28:08 PM
Quote from: utilitarian on November 24, 2007, 08:24:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 08:13:27 PM
Secondary axis? I don't see secondary axis in the machine here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2326.0.html. How does your concept explain why that machine is working if there is no secondary axis?
Omnibus, if you think that machine is real, you are a world class sucker. Though I have to say, if you fell for the "expensife" spinny screw drum, I suppose you will believe anything.
Aha, so now it's not the secondary axis but that the machine isn't real. Make up your mind first before playing the role of a "skeptic".
I think it was P-Motion who brought up the secondary axis. I think the device is completely bogus. It is advertised just like every other bogus OU claim out there.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 24, 2007, 08:36:51 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 08:28:08 PM
Quote from: utilitarian on November 24, 2007, 08:24:29 PM
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 08:13:27 PM
Secondary axis? I don't see secondary axis in the machine here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2326.0.html. How does your concept explain why that machine is working if there is no secondary axis?
Omnibus, if you think that machine is real, you are a world class sucker. Though I have to say, if you fell for the "expensife" spinny screw drum, I suppose you will believe anything.
Aha, so now it's not the secondary axis but that the machine isn't real. Make up your mind first before playing the role of a "skeptic".
I think it was P-Motion who brought up the secondary axis. I think the device is completely bogus. It is advertised just like every other bogus OU claim out there.
OK, so now let's wait for P-Motion to lay out the equations which prove his secondary axis point. As for the device being bogus, on what grounds are you pronouncing it as such?
not available...........This site must be about verification.IF not it is rumour
Quote from: Omnibus on November 24, 2007, 09:03:06 PM
OK, so now let's wait for P-Motion to lay out the equations which prove his secondary axis point. As for the device being bogus, on what grounds are you pronouncing it as such?
I have no grounds but the tested principles of physics.
Mr. Omnibus, I respect your intensity, but in your quest for the holy grail of free energy, somewhere along the way you have lost the sense of who should bear the burden of proof in situations like these. Posting a video is not nearly enough evidence, not by a very long shot. Power sources are easy to hide in videos. Posting a video does not reverse the burden of proof onto the skeptics. Far from it, a video is merely the first tiny step to getting the word out. Then, the device must be replicated and verified by reputable people or organizations.
So, we are still in the position where we started with regard to the device you just cited, as well as expenzife and even Finsrud for that matter. We have virtually nothing. A video is not quite nothing, but it is almost nothing, considering the number of practical jokes on Youtube. The burden is still on the purported inventors to get their inventions verified. Until then, this kind of stuff really isn't worth lifting an eyebrow at.
Back to original topic, the things that the people on this forum have done to replicate the screw drum thingy is more than enough to discredit the whole thing. These good folks have gone above and beyond what is expected from someone's practical joke, so let's put the screw drum to rest, shall we?
@ Ultilitarian:
I agree 100%, for whatever that is worth.
Bill
Chas, I have had a similar idea based on the same principles as your gravity machine. I am a mechanical engineer working in the solar and energy field. I had designed the machine before I knew of yours and I was surprised how similar it was to yours. The idea of using torque, or as you say leverage, to move an outer wheel while driving an inner wheel to raise the same weight, a ball, using less torque, that in turn moves back out to the outer wheel seems to make sense. As you mention, timing is involved, and I have incorporated a small time of freefall between the exchange of weights so as to not create a balance that could stop the machine. So I just wanted to say thank you for giving me a boost to keep on going with this project knowing that the idea is real and I applaud your efforts in developing this machine to give to the world. Keep up the good work and hopefully those who spend all their energy trying to stop these technologies will finally expend themselves and give in to help others as well, instead of hindering those who are trying to help others. Hopefully you can get someone to help you get a website going or at least get an email address for those of us who would like to support you in your endeavor.
Tom
Seeing that someone has brought this thread up again, has anyone else noticed that Chas Campbell and his devices are no longer mentioned on Panacea. I wonder what happened to Ashtweth's star project.
Didn't work maybe??
Hans von Lieven
G'day P-Motion and all,
I am not quite certain what you are driving at. Do you refer to a common psychological trait amongst PM researchers or what?
Please elaborate a little on your idea.
Hans von Lieven
Hans,
from what i understand of the theory, its the appeal for PM, or OU, and its infinite possibilities were we able to achieve it.
this may not apply to many of us who are simply researching, or experimenting for a POSSIBILITY of a PM tech.
It would mostly apply to those persons who have deluded themselves into believing that PM DOES in fact exist somewhere out there, and that if they keep trying they WILL succeed.
There are psychological factors involved in this sort of thinking, and there are people like that on this forum, you can read it by the things they say. - in fact i think they are some of the best contributors to the type of research that's being done here, because they start with the assumption that the device will work, then study it to figure out why it doesnt.
completely backwards approach to what many of us do.
Common psychological traits would most likely be along the lines of:::
a desire for power, a sense of despair towards their position in society, a general dislike towards inflation and rising energy costs, and a misconcieved notion about what PM actually IS.
hope this sheds some light on the theory. im not a psychologist, so i cannot diagnose any one particular person, but im sure each of us have encountered someone who could fit this category.
they treat PM as more of a Religion, then an area of scientific study. thats the best way i can put it. I am not convinced that this psychological ailment ONLY applies to PM, i think people could display similar traits towards another concept, or idealism and it would be essentially the same.
in conclusion:
1) there may be psychological factors influencing PM researchers.
and
2) This may not be exclusively related to PM/OU, but rather the person is simply displaying these traits towards their work, and could do the same towards any other area of knowledge or study.
Good analysis Smoky,
You are right, it is observable here in many posts as you pointed out.
This is not exclusive to PM though, the flat earth research society is another good example of the same thing or the attempt to determine the age of the universe using biblical references.
It reminds me of the Arab conqueror, I forget which one, who destroyed whole libraries wherever he went.
His reasoning was that there could be only two types of books, those who said things that contradicted the Koran, in which case they had to be destroyed on the grounds of heresy, and those who agreed with the Koran, in which case they were superfluous and therefore had to be destroyed as well.
There is little new under the sun.
Hans von Lieven
Hi Hans,
it sounds quite scholarly what you write about book burning but that is a pretty old hoax:
Several historians told varying accounts of a Muslim army led by Amr ibn al 'Aas sacking the city of Alexandria in 645, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the famous library, and received the response "...if what is written in them agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees, they are not desired. Destroy them therefore.", and thus burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers. However the legend has been dismissed by some as a later invention of Christian crusaders eager to justify the "barbarism" of Muslim armies.
While the first Western account of the supposed event was in Edward Pococke's 1663 century translation of History of the Dynasties, it was dismissed as a hoax or propaganda as early as 1713 by Fr. Eus?be Renaudot, and other later scholars agreed, including Alfred J. Butler.
OK, I admit being a little nitpicker.... ;)
Greetings, Pontifex
older such libararies did not need ot be burned by attacking foreign rulers. They were full of papyurs, and the only source of light was an open flame. Libraries burned them selves down on frequent occasion. it is thought that the library of alendria burned (at least partially) on several occasions.
All perpetual motion inventors are liars, except you and me, and some times i wonder about you.
Wake-up people, your to damn gullible; it took you six (6) months to identify this hoax; "and the people pushing it".
The Big Con: How to spot an Over-Unity Hoax
o No Documentation describing claim
o No Diagrams/Schematics/Circuits
o No Replication
o No Clear photos or videos of device
o No Dismantling of device
o No third party testing allowed
o Inventor claims you need to build TEST Models before you can understand the technology. See no Replication.
o Inventor or his company claims they need MONEY to make it work.
o Inventor doesn't personally use his newly found technology .. their always perfecting something better. See no Replication.
o Inventor claims "decades" of success and testing but doesn't have a working model.
Feel free to add to the list.
- Schpankme
Perpetual motion is indeed impossible according to the current and pervasive "Laws" of physics. It's also impossible if one has their head up their ass.
Nevertheless, the laws of Nature have never felt the compulsion to adhere to the flawed ideas of man. While man would love to think that he has conquered nature with his brilliant intellect, self flagellation and an honest look at reality are often two different things.
The most basic building block in this universe is nothing but perpetual motion. Where the atom draws it's energy from, so should we.
Quote from: Eddy Currentz on December 13, 2007, 06:33:17 PM
Perpetual motion is indeed impossible according to the current and pervasive "Laws" of physics. It's also impossible if one has their head up their ass.
Nevertheless, the laws of Nature have never felt the compulsion to adhere to the flawed ideas of man. While man would love to think that he has conquered nature with his brilliant intellect, self flagellation and an honest look at reality are often two different things.
The most basic building block in this universe is nothing but perpetual motion. Where the atom draws it's energy from, so should we.
More power to you for fighting the "man," but I am curious, which current laws of physics do you find flawed and upon what evidence?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on December 14, 2007, 12:21:07 AM
More power to you for fighting the "man," but I am curious, which current laws of physics do you find flawed and upon what evidence?
The main problem I have with contemporary physics is their adherence to the belief that there is no aether. This major oversight is the fundamental reason that most physicists can't bring themselves to think beyond Newton. The reason much of science is still stuck with 100 year old theory's is the same reason we still use 100 year old motor designs. Why would I want to follow modern physics where the possibilities are absolutely limited?
Aether dynamics are where all the energy is. It also makes a lot more sense to me.
Quote from: Eddy Currentz on December 14, 2007, 02:36:06 PM
The main problem I have with contemporary physics is their adherence to the belief that there is no aether. This major oversight is the fundamental reason that most physicists can't bring themselves to think beyond Newton.
I think it is more like modern science has seen no evidence of this aether you speak of and therefore has given it no serious consideration, much like zoologists give no serious consideration to unicorns and dragons. If you were to create an experiment demonstrating the presence of this aether, I have no doubt modern science would listen. How has this aether made its presence known to you?
Quote from: shruggedatlas on December 14, 2007, 05:02:52 PM
I think it is more like modern science has seen no evidence of this aether you speak of and therefore has given it no serious consideration, much like zoologists give no serious consideration to unicorns and dragons. If you were to create an experiment demonstrating the presence of this aether, I have no doubt modern science would listen. How has this aether made its presence known to you?
Modern science is suffering from lack of oxygen to the brain caused by their over stretched sphincters constricting around their necks.
I've studied enough physics to know that there has to be an energetic medium to provide energy and support to the material cosmos. The physical world has no explanation without it.
Here's a good quote:
"One early example of proof for the existence of the aether comes from Dr. Hal Puthoff, a respected scientist from Cambridge University. Puthoff frequently mentions experiments from the early 20th century that were designed to see if there was any energy in ?empty space,? conducted before quantum mechanics theory ever existed.
In order to test this idea in the laboratory, it was necessary to create an area that was completely free of air (a vacuum,) and lead-shielded from all known electromagnetic radiation fields by using what is known as a Faraday cage. This airless vacuum space was then cooled down to absolute zero or -273? C,the temperature where all matter should stop vibrating and thus produce no heat.
These experiments proved that instead of an absence of energy in the vacuum, there was a tremendous amount of it, from a completely non-electromagnetic source! Dr. Puthoff has often called this a "seething cauldron" of energy in very high magnitudes.
Since this energy could still be found at absolute zero, this force was dubbed "zero point energy" or ZPE, whereas the Russian scientists usually call it the ?physical vacuum? or PV. Recently, established mainstream physicists John Wheeler and Richard Feynman have calculated that:
The amount of zero-point energy in the space volume of a single light bulb is powerful enough to bring all the world?s oceans to the boiling point!
Clearly, we are not dealing with some weak, unseen force, but rather a source of almost impossibly grand power, which would have more than enough strength to sustain the existence of all of physical matter.
In the new view of science that is emerging from aether theory, all four of the basic force fields, whether gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear or strong nuclear force, are all simply different forms of the aether/ZPE.
To get another idea of how much ?free? energy really exists all around us, Professor M.T. Daniels found that the density of the gravitational energy near the surface of the earth is equal to 5.74 ? 1010 (t/m3). [Let us not forget that gravity would simply be another form of aether in this new model.]
Prof. Daniels? finding means that drawing a sizable 100 kilowatts of this ?free energy? power from the gravitational field dips into an extremely tiny 0.001% of the natural energy that is being produced in that area. (New Energy News, June 1994, p.4)
Research conducted by Nikola Tesla led to his statement in 1891 that the aether ?behaves as a fluid to solid bodies, and as a solid to light and heat,? and that under ?sufficiently high voltage and frequency,? it could be accessed ? which was his hint that free energy and anti-gravity technologies were possible."
http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36 (http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36)
Is that the Dr Putoff mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff
The one fooled by Uri Geller?
The one who believes in remote viewing?
The scientologist who believes in xenu and the writings of a science fiction author?
ERS
Gee...I guess my idea of self-powered flight by tugging upward on one's own butt could experience a resurgence of popularity here! Maybe they have one of these suits that will fit Lawrence Tseung or Ashtweth!
Linda
Hi Eddy, i agree your statements. Aether or something like that is the one and only explanation for me too.
Quote from: Eddy Currentz on December 14, 2007, 06:10:11 PM
[
"One early example of proof for the existence of the aether comes from Dr. Hal Puthoff, a respected scientist from Cambridge University. Puthoff frequently mentions experiments from the early 20th century that were designed to see if there was any energy in ?empty space,? conducted before quantum mechanics theory ever existed.
In order to test this idea in the laboratory, it was necessary to create an area that was completely free of air (a vacuum,) and lead-shielded from all known electromagnetic radiation fields by using what is known as a Faraday cage. This airless vacuum space was then cooled down to absolute zero or -273? C,the temperature where all matter should stop vibrating and thus produce no heat.
G'day all,
I would like to clarify something here.
1) A total vacuum has never been achieved in a laboratory ANYWHERE ! In fact Quantum mechanics states that a total vacuum cannot exist in nature.
2) Absolute zero has also NEVER been achieved and in fact is suspected to also not exist in the real world.
If Puthoff claims to have done this he is a liar.
The main reason why ether theory is ignored by modern science is that it is rather irrelevant whether the whole universe floats in some penultimate soup or not. Ether, by definition is unknowable. Since everything is made of it in various densities, according to ether theorists, it is as much part of the observer as it is of the observed. That makes it unobservable.
Also there is no value in an ether theory. Science has come a long way by ignoring it and carrying on with the observable and provable. By contrast ether theories have NEVER led to any discoveries of any kind! (this does not mean that monumental discoveries were not made by people who believed in the existence of an ether)
What it does mean though is that for purposes of research and development it is irrelevant whether the researcher believes in an ether or not.
It is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.
Besides, contemporary science does not discount the fact that enormous amounts of energy are "lying around out there" so to speak. The question is how to tap into those energies safely without creating disaster (ever heard of an atom bomb?)
Hans von Lieven
Hans
-------- "2) Absolute zero has also NEVER been achieved and in fact is suspected to also not exist in the real world. "
correction, there are circumstances in nature where this does occur, in fact one is comming up in our solar system, in approx. May of 2012, NASA is already preparing to do a series of tests in absolute zero conditions.
the planetary allignment will create a magnetic anomaly, that with a unique shadow effect will create portions of space between the outer planets of our solar system, where no light will reach, and the temperature in these spots is supposed to get to absolute 0
Has yet to be proven though, doesn't it?
Hans
G'day P-Motion,
I think most people, when they look at a concept such as the Bessler wheel think that it is an easily understood system that does not need much study to figure it out. All simple stuff, nothing to it.
Until they try and their ideas come to nothing.
What they overlook that behind that apparent simplicity is a very complex interaction of forces that continually change as to torque, direction, relative centre of gravity and so forth and make behaviour of the whole difficult to predict.
As to your second question, how do weights acting totally independently from the wheel and its axis influence the rotation of the wheel if they are not linked in some way, in which case they no longer act independently.
I other words if they are an independent unit they are no good to you.
Hans von Lieven
HansvLieven quotes: "it is rather irrelevant whether the whole universe floats in some penultimate soup or not"
Would say: Has yet to be proven though, doesn't it?
How can a researcher say this? To know if ether is there or not would be a huge step further to world-formula, the comple physical description of our environment. When this is irrelevant, then i and you know nothing!
Quote from: P-Motion on December 16, 2007, 10:38:12 AM
Since this is off topic, why don't you say how you would pursue a theory based on a belief in an ether. And how you would obtain energy from it.
Einstein began this approach, and through the process of doing so, had convinced himself (and subsequently the whole of the science community) that this aether did not exist.
There is nothing that says the aether does not exist. But if it does, we as humans have simply not developed a method of 'experiencing' it to any measurable degree enough to know wether its there or not.
This is something i've been working on personally, but my experience thus far has resulted in negative results. Mostly because the testable forces i am familiar with either:
a) do not interact directly with the aether
b) require the aether for their own field propegation
or
c) react equally with the eather regardless of intensity, direction, frequency, temparature, polarization, distance, mass, or a list of other variables upon with no noticible eather feedback is observed.
The answer to this question is the major holdback from me writing a aetheric theory of the universe.
other than that i am quite convinced that there is an aether (though no way to detect it with any certainty),. This aether mus exist in the form of an (magnetic) energy mesh. that allows for instaneous magnetic field propegation at an infinite distance. It also restricts the speed that light can travel through it, Without it, energy fields could (should) not exist. magnetic, electro-magnetic, nueclear fields could not propegate. - my best analogy for this would be like a sound wave in the vacuum of space.
It think once we 'tap' into it, we may find that it is directly proportional to several common "fudge factors" that often appear in equations. (i.e. - gaussian integral, plank's constant, c , cosmological constant, or the electrical charge of the proton, ect)
What we need is to develop a method of 'detecting' this eather, from there we could develop experiments to exaplin its nature.
I agree with you Smoky,
Personally I feel that an ether has to exist, though I do believe that we cannot measure it and therefore are unable to determine its properties.
Having said that, we might as well stick with what we can observe and for now at least stick with particle physics and quantum mechanics.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 15, 2007, 07:46:47 PM
Hans
-------- "2) Absolute zero has also NEVER been achieved and in fact is suspected to also not exist in the real world. "
correction, there are circumstances in nature where this does occur, in fact one is comming up in our solar system, in approx. May of 2012, NASA is already preparing to do a series of tests in absolute zero conditions.
the planetary allignment will create a magnetic anomaly, that with a unique shadow effect will create portions of space between the outer planets of our solar system, where no light will reach, and the temperature in these spots is supposed to get to absolute 0
Another off topic comment. Sorry. 2012 is the year the Aztec calendar predicts the end of the world. Also a few US psychics. Just FYI
Tim
The Aztecs did not predict the end of the world, it is simply the end of the astrological cycle, and cooincidently the beggining and end of their calendar.
Delete. See this:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4007.new.html
I got curious about this thread and started reading
I got up to page 15
I take from this page that everyone has written off the flywheel idea.
The skeptics here will say that they are just trying to keep people from reinventing the wheel .
I think that chances are that the group here has UNinvented the wheel
I remember many years ago before I had any intrerest in saving energy there was a guy on TV with a very simple flywheel based machine that he said made extra energy .
This guy explained that he had built the original machine with spare parts and it worked very well
He then built a better looking version . .........but the new version didn't have any extra power.
He said he spent monthis trying to figure out why the original machine just thrown together created extra power and the carefully built new machine made no extra power at all .
Then one day he decided that it was time to change the belt on the original machine .
With a new belt tensioned propperly the original machine no longer produced any extra energy .
After playing with the tension he got the original machine to start producing extra energy again . He loosened the fan belt untill it started bouncing a little .
He did the same with the his new version and it started producing extra power too .
He he had the camera zoom in and show the belt . ......it was clearly not running smooth it was it bounced quit a bit .......making the motor pull hard then idle
Pulses of power was the secret . He also said that he found it almost impossable to get engineer types to understand this . "they always insist on belts bing tight ."
In the first video ......(mostly about the bessler type wheel ) it shows the flywheel device near the end of the video ........and one if the last things it shows . Chas is explaining about how he has the belts loose to keep from overloading the motor ........and they are talking about other ways to do that .
In my opinion in this case .......to many cooks spoiled the meal .
I hope that there is still someone out there that has an open mind about this project .
gary
You need to understand that there is no special motor, no special wiring, just off the shelf motor and generator head with geared-up flywheel weights to store the energy temporarily.....don't waste your time.
Rich
Quote from: oouthere on May 05, 2008, 09:02:24 AM
You need to understand that there is no special motor, no special wiring, just off the shelf motor and generator head with geared-up flywheel weights to store the energy temporarily.....don't waste your time.
Rich
@Rich
It is not a waist of time to try everything out.
The Chas Campbell Technologie is a good proof to show how to realise a Energy management.
And to me ,there is no proof yet,that a flywheel is not able to get extra Energy out of the space.
With maximum interest i will do some test to proofe the relationship between inertia and mass and momentum.
There is still a lot to learn.
helmut
Quote from: oouthere on May 05, 2008, 09:02:24 AM
You need to understand that there is no special motor, no special wiring, just off the shelf motor and generator head with geared-up flywheel weights to store the energy temporarily.....don't waste your time.
Rich
Rich
The guy I saw on TV years ago as far as I know only used one set of flywheels and a bouncing belt
I don't remember many details except he asked the camera to zoom in on the belt
I remember 2 vertical bars with a flywheel on each side ....... and the belt in between .
I remember that the bars formed something like a slot that the belt was in ......at times it looked like it was trying to pop out of the slot .
I don't remember seeing more flywheels behind the others .
I don't remember the motor and generator but they must have been at the bottom of the machine
I remember the belt because of the story he told about finding out about it by accident .
I don't have any idea what happened to the guy or his device, as far as I know he was only on TV that one tim
I do remember him talking about how hard it was trying to get people to take his invention seriously and how all the engeneer types thought that the belts would have to be tight for it to run right .
gary
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 07, 2007, 04:42:29 AM
This the last message I received from Chas:
From: chas campbell
To: Patrick Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: simple test
Patrick as I told you in a recent e mail as soon as posiable I would build a unit to test using your simple idea , I am now delighted to let you know the results were as follows using the same .075 motor that has a speed of 1430 RPM and driving my 3.5 KVA alternator I was able to loop the motor back to one of the outlets on the alternator without loosing any speed I was then able to plug into the second outlet a bed lamp with a 75w bulb and yes they both worked.The unit I assembled has a flywheel that is unbalanced as a mater of fact its like standing in front of a fan, one of the bearings over heated and no mater how I tried I could not stop the belt slipping on the motor . so a hell of a lot of improvments could be made. I do hope you will continue to show interest in my project and any simple advice you can give me would be wellcome .Chas
This to me looks evidence that like the guy on TV was right
The power has to be pulsed ........and it works even if the pulsing is being caused by a bad bearing.
gary
Quote from: resonanceman on May 05, 2008, 11:00:08 AM
This to me looks evidence that like the guy on TV was right
The power has to be pulsed ........and it works even if the pulsing is being caused by a bad bearing.
gary
here is another link about the Chas Campbell device .
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter4.pdf
page 2 tells about how the belts have to be loose so that it pulses the flywheels
there are other ways to create the pulses further down .
gary
I found a new video of Chas on youtube today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcbi0p-PtHM
No more update about this?
Quote from: TheOne on October 05, 2008, 10:55:06 PM
I found a new video of Chas on youtube today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcbi0p-PtHM
No more update about this?
TheOne
I think that video is copy of one of the videos that this thread was started to investigate.
gary
Hi all;
I ran across a video today showing a replication but I'm a bit skeptical as it leads to a web page that has plans for $$
The video is here at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6VOp0_vEQ&feature=relmfu
With this description:
Published on May 31, 2012 by FreeEnergyLT (http://www.youtube.com/user/FreeEnergyLT)
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt4.html (http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt4.html)
I've build a Chas Chambell Free Energy Generator..
Click the link to subscribe,
http://www.green-energy-guides.com/chas-chambell/ (http://www.green-energy-guides.com/chas-chambell/)
I am planing to release the full video on how I've built it, with detailed dimensions, etc..
original video ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP1wZ3feyzQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP1wZ3feyzQ)
http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/anonimus_free_energy/ (http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/anonimus_free_energy/)
FREE ENERGY = FREE INFO !!!!
The reason I went there was that it was listed as a successful replication in Patrick Kelly's and I don't remember seeing this back when this thread was active...It's been awhile....
Has anyone seen or heard of this supposed replication?
Thanks,
Paul
I watched the last video.
when he pluged the drill in to start the unit he also pluged the small motor in at bottom of unit in. so the whole thing is running of the grid. or other power supply?
God bless
wer
Thanks for your reply and the input.
I agree with you that it looks highly suspicious and that's why I asked the question "Has anyone seen or heard of this supposed replication", I haven't seen it or heard of it since this thread was started and since it was posted on Kellynet I thought by now someone would have heard about this supposed replication, otherwise I might as well ignore everything new showing up on Kellynet as being a possibility without verification like all the other OU claims out there :o
Thanks,
Paul
.
Hello All,
Please, could you tell me if, at the end of the day, is the invention of Mr Chas Campbell working with real as OU system ?
Did somebody succeed to make it to work ?
Kind Regards,
Chris
Not that I ever heard.
Bill
Hi Guys
I have replicated Campell's idea, but i have some problems when i feed the output to the input. It seems to me that a basic synchronization is needed between the 50Hz output of gen and 50Hz input of motor. Do you think if by adding a cap will fix the phase difference? Is there any other mechanism that is needed for bringing the two signals in phase? After plugging it again and again, at the end i saw some little smokes going out of my generator's socket. Any ideas?
I would have thought that the frequency of the output would depend on the rotational speed.
Can you not function only in DC ?
Since the final pulley ratio is 2.2:1, having 3 sets of pulley is unnecessary; drive the flywheel directly with the motor and make the only pulley set 2.2;1. Better yet, use a generator designed for 1430 rpm.
As Paul-R says, use DC only but make sure that the voltages match at the design rpm.
Best is not to spend time time/money on this at all.
@ Jeg, Thank you for sharing your results.
The reason so many replications don't work is because of the difficulty in Syncing the generator AC output
pulses with the required motor AC input pulses at the proper shaft position for maximum output. For example.
Suppose the motor shaft rotor needs AC pulses at 90 degrees & 180 degrees for Maximum Output torque.
BUT it is receiving the AC pulses earlier or later due to the generator & motor shafts being OUT OF SYNC due
to being separated by Belts, Gears & Pulleys.
So what's the answer? A BIG FLYWHEEL that will supply constant torque to the Motor & Generator, regardless
of the Shaft Position difference between the Motor & Generator.
That's the Big Secret hardly anybody knows about!
.
Syncing is trivial compared to getting OU. And, as mentioned, using DC gets around the syncing issue.
The reason that it does not work is simple: no extra energy is produced beyond what was input.
Quote from: Paul-R on November 03, 2015, 08:26:17 AM
I would have thought that the frequency of the output would depend on the rotational speed.
Can you not function only in DC ?
Hi PaulR
Yes, the output frequency depend on the rotational speed. Dc motor would be a good idea but I'd like to find a solution for this for the moment.
First of all I need to understand what I have to sync. When I take the plug out of mains, system still is running and needs some time to stop. As system lowers down RPM, the output frequency starts also to lower down. What is the problem if I supply my input motor straight of the output? Why do we care about the different rpm between the axis of motor and gen? Isn't the frequency the same between the motors while working?
Memoryman
If I could turn the time back I wouldn't get involved on this. But anyway, I have some time for messing around.
Quote from: FatBird on November 03, 2015, 09:46:56 AM
So what's the answer? A BIG FLYWHEEL that will supply constant torque to the Motor & Generator, regardless
of the Shaft Position difference between the Motor & Generator.
That's the Big Secret hardly anybody knows about!
.
Hi Fatbird.
Do you mean that in my case with bigger flywheel I have chances to sync it?
My motor runs at 1430 rpm. Gen runs at 3000rpm. If I step down my output and rectify it, do you find it a good idea to use a dc inverter? Is this a solution instead to sync?
Jeg, invent a time machine and your problem is solved...
The AC motor is probably synchronous, so will slow down as the supply frequency decreases. As nobody has managed to show a self-looping device, that gives a very good indication of the likelyhood of this being possible.
Have fun with your experimenting.
Quote from: memoryman on November 03, 2015, 12:07:39 PM
Jeg, invent a time machine and your problem is solved...
The AC motor is probably synchronous, so will slow down as the supply frequency decreases. As nobody has managed to show a self-looping device, that gives a very good indication of the likelyhood of this being possible.
Have fun with your experimenting.
Thanks memoryman.
Yes it is synchronous. What do you say about the dc inverter idea for supplying it?
a: use a DC motor and have a DC generator with matching full speed voltage or rectify the AC generator output, also keeping the DC voltage close to the motor voltage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb_PQ32tMQ0
here is my analysis in a jpeg
you might also read this last page.
Thanks memoryman. I ll give it a shot.
Armcortex sorry but I don't see your jpeg file. Probably you forgot to attach it ;)
Quote from: Jeg on November 03, 2015, 12:26:05 PM
Thanks memoryman.
Yes it is synchronous. What do you say about the dc inverter idea for supplying it?
was going to ask if you're familiar with Thane Heins work, etc. but thought better of it, sorry.
@ Jeg,
If you are using a synchronous motor, than that's the PROBLEM. These kind of motors have very little torque
COMPARED to regular AC induction motors. Synchronous motors are mainly used in electric CLOCKS and for
Power Factor correction in large factories.
Sorry, But you will NEVER get a WEAK synchronous motor to work on a Charles Campbell setup.
.
FatBird, you will never get any type of device based on Chas Campbell's 'principle' to produce OU in any form.
The jpeg is in the YT comment, sorry.
The reason one can not succeed is because the motor and the generator
we are using today are very inefficient .it goes like this to every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction.so if one can counteract this
then this system will work..this counter reaction is the famous lenz
law..so one have to redevelop a motor and a generator that override
these laws..
Motor and generators can be obtained that are well over 90% efficient.
NONE of the claimed OU devices work because they violate the 1st law of thermodynamics (LoT1).
there is no motor on earth that is 90 % efficient.. because if it was it will
breaking your famous law. the way they measure efficiency is wrong.
if that flywheel is accelerating faster than 908m/s/s, then energy
can be extracted from this system..
correction 9.8m/s/s
so please explain this to me TO EVERY ACTION THERE AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.
where can one get 90 % out of that.
"there is no motor on earth that is 90 % efficient.. because if it was it will breaking your famous law. the way they measure efficiency is wrong." explain why you think it's wrong.
Flywheel STORE energy, they don't create it.
"so please explain this to me TO EVERY ACTION THERE AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.where can one get 90 % out of that." ???
Quote from: seychelles on November 03, 2015, 08:34:51 PM
if that flywheel is accelerating faster than 9.8m/s/s, then energy
can be extracted from this system..
energy extracted from where? from the gravitational effect on the down side of the flywheel?
What happens on the up side?
one half is going up, that takes away from the side going down to = 0
no matter how fast it turns. the equation holds true even down to the picosecond.
10,000,000 RPM, and its still the same.
up + down = 0
E = mgh
Pi r round ( or are they squared?)
well just recently in the news an engineer invented this new motor that
uses 30 % less power than any other motor on the planet..so which motor is 90% efficient.
the one that this guy just invented or the one that you allege is 90 % efficient..
energy can not be created but can be extracted , converted, transform, transmitted and stored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taj4VA1L_vw just for your own enjoyment..
Quote from: sm0ky2 on November 03, 2015, 10:21:46 PM
energy extracted from where? from the gravitational effect on the down side of the flywheel?
What happens on the up side?
one half is going up, that takes away from the side going down to = 0
no matter how fast it turns. the equation holds true even down to the picosecond.
10,000,000 RPM, and its still the same.
up + down = 0
E = mgh
Pi r round ( or are they squared?)
Can I have some fun with you sm0ky2 ? There are misperceptions in science. You seem to have missed them.
Flywheels will never gain an advantage. This means everything you posted is redundant. A flywheel is basically an inanimate object yet you have some knowledge that the rest of us have missed.
On the other hand, over unity is a process. It is a transfer of energy. The laws of physics can not be violated. In any instance, heat is related to kinetic energy. In your post, I saw no such reference.
It is possible that a flywheel has it's uses. I just can't tell someone not to consider something.
so if one goes into outer space out of earth bound gravity and one spin a flywheel
will it eventually stop.
Quote from: seychelles on November 03, 2015, 10:36:55 PM
so if one goes into outer space out of earth bound gravity and one spin a flywheel
will it eventually stop.
It will. There is what scientists call the 5th Element which might be nothing more than those zippy little neutrinos.
They have what is called the Cosmological model which is wrong. The basic reason why is that stars (suns) are moving faster through the universe than physics allows for. Basically, they should have suffered catastrophic failure but haven't.
With a flywheel, it transfers energy. An early example of this is the term "balls out". This refers to generator at max rpm's using 2 weighted balls to control their RPM. This was in the days of dc power.
The basic difference between ac and dc power is distance. C power suffers a high entropy rate and is still used in poor economies.
With ac power, it is more expensive but suffers a lower rate of entropy over greater distances. There are other factors that decide whether an economy should use ac or dc power but that is a different subject.
@seychelles: "well just recently in the news an engineer invented this new motor that uses 30 % less power than any other motor on the planet..so which motor is 90% efficient.the one that this guy just invented or the one that you allege is 90 % efficient." if you are referring to the Keppe motor, then you are mistaken. If not, please give the name of the inventor.
a flywheel is passive, i.e. it STORES energy that was put into it; that energy can be extracted, but no more.
If you go through my prrio posts, I have linked many videos, let me gather them again.
Many videos, from many people. Some are HUGE and very expensive.. 100,000$ +.
Money talks to me more than forum people with no money.
Some people, seem to think this is worth spending money on.
I say its worth investigating. Nice work Jeg.
There is not much theory out there, regarding this flywheel effect, here is one of the major ones.
Is there more out there?
http://www.resonantfractals.org/Magnetism/Flywheel.htm
this is the gravity part of the forum. If you guys missed this, who knows what else you have missed. I doubt it matters much, you know details.
eka elektirik
AG energy
Technokontrol
These 3 startups, has huge builds.
Smaller builds, too many to mention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoyDX0A02gw
This one from bangladesh, is interresting.
Perhaps the goal is to create some kind of resonance of impulses within the belt. BY making the power input disconnect and reconnect somehow, or have a double pulley with really shitty connection and bumps.. The motor can be seen as a drag if we depower it, the conection can also be bumpy or eccentric. Not the flywheel, I dont suggest eccentric theory of flywheel, but you may try, From what I see of claimed working device I see no eccentricity of flywheel itself.
Exept for Pejic on his prototype bycicle,, but that seems to dissapear in his metal box.
As Krstan was telling.
Ag energies, use hydraulic input power, box that seems to be loose big flywheel, BIG shaking, box is getting pummeled.
A hydraulic Osillator of some sort, there is the deliberate looseness of the chain, the box had very shaky structure. Technokontrol, almost identical.
If you are very smart, you can guess whats in that sealed box.
Me I know, whats in there, I think I know, not really secret its analogous to the pulley build I have been studying Hydraulics alot lately and paying careful attention to these 2 videos.
Hydraulics better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCkID5jDZks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkbeTlqlLr4
You need money for hydraulics, these guys had big bucks invested lol.
Do you even know the price of all these machined parts? Could you even left this stuff around to even make this thing?
Hi, somebody of you could replicate the chas campbell system?
Hi somebody of you could replicate the chas campbell?
Replicate, yes; produce OU, no.
the original Chas Campbell wheel was a giant mechanism with rolling balla to off-set the center of gravity.
After that idea was hammered into the ground and proven to be invalid,.. these flywheels started coming into play.
Now, the same man once again "stumbles" upon a working prototype, which no one has yet to observe definitively in operation
ok, let's for a minute ignore the obvious violation of a conservative gravitational field theory.
and ponder the situation(s) where this may be possible.
Now, I've gone around and around (haha) with this concept for several years and the only solution I can come up with is as follows::
Let us suppose a flywheel has a minor cyclical perturbation.
an imbalance, that causes the wheel to wobble or vibrate.
and let us further suppose that the vector of this vibration is only allowed to propagate along the horizontal axis.
We shall further define this motion to be to the left and right of the center of rotation (looking into the axis)
This will behave similar to a gyro in motion along a horizontal axis. There will be an upward force counter to the gravitational.
two other things occur, momentarily - gravitationally induced friction on the axle is reduced.
and tension on any belts is also reduced for a moment.
Now, if there were an addition of an offset weight placed near the rim of the wheel
in the right location, to be in phase with the axial vibrations, such that it may exploit these factors
and as well as the physical offset to the (avg) center of rotation during the right gravitational moments.
what I mean by that is, let's take the simplest example, where frequency of the vibrations of the axle are 2x the rpm.
for instance: if the wheel was rotating clockwise to your perspective, the offset weight would be in the
lower-left quadrant during the time when the axial-vibration is moving to the right.
the offset weight moves into the upper-left quadrant while the axle shifts left.
the weight is in the upper-right quadrant while the axle shifts to the right again.
and the weight is in the lower-right quadrant when the axle shifts back to the left.
This is the only scenario I can come up with where momentum (from our perspective), could still be at a rate in which OU could be possible.
in reality, performing any one of these things is a feat of engineering.
Doing all of them at once, in phase with one another - that may be for a NASA laboratory, not some guys garage....
Hi Everyone
I m Making Chas Cambell Free Power Machine
I Want To Run 50KW Alternator [1500 RPM]
Motor I Want To Use Is 2HP 1450 RPM Single Phase And Pulley On Motor Is 4"
One Side Pulley On Shaft Is 9" Connected To Motor [Shaft Size Is 28" Length And 2" Diameter]
On The Other Side Pulley Is 8" Connected To Alternator And Alternator Pulley Is 4" With FlyWheel
Tht Means FlyWheel Is Attached On Alternator [ FlyWheel Diameter Is 20" And Weight Is 42KG ]
Can Anyone Please Tell Me I Am Doing Anything Wrong? Plz Correct Me If Im Doing Any mistake
It'll Be V Much Helpful Thanks
[Attached Picture Is Detail Of Alternator]
[Update]
When I Run Test, After Displaying Volts In Meter, Motor Starts Heating And Speed Goes Slow And Voltage Drops From 300V To 100V And So On...
I agree with what you have said.
As is always the case, OU was not found.
But it is a valid direction for those who seek the ever elusive OU.
There was an indian company, by the name AG energies.
I heard that they quickly dissapeared, its as if they never existed.
They had a very impressive video, you can notice a few strange things in the video but nothing much.
The secret must be difficult to comprehend since its in plain sight. They are confident nobody can figure it out...
Then the chas campbell is a fake bu I do not know if you have seen a replication in youtube:
Quote from: xspydarex on December 31, 2015, 04:13:51 AM
Hi Everyone
I m Making Chas Cambell Free Power Machine
I Want To Run 50KW Alternator [1500 RPM]
Motor I Want To Use Is 2HP 1450 RPM Single Phase And Pulley On Motor Is 4"
One Side Pulley On Shaft Is 9" Connected To Motor [Shaft Size Is 28" Length And 2" Diameter]
On The Other Side Pulley Is 8" Connected To Alternator And Alternator Pulley Is 4" With FlyWheel
Tht Means FlyWheel Is Attached On Alternator [ FlyWheel Diameter Is 20" And Weight Is 42KG ]
Can Anyone Please Tell Me I Am Doing Anything Wrong? Plz Correct Me If Im Doing Any mistake
It'll Be V Much Helpful Thanks
[Attached Picture Is Detail Of Alternator]
[Update]
When I Run Test, After Displaying Volts In Meter, Motor Starts Heating And Speed Goes Slow And Voltage Drops From 300V To 100V And So On...
this Alternator shown in the picture is not very efficient. it generates about 50% of the energy consumed to spin it up to whatever RPM you want to generate at.
put in short, the energy this generator outputs at 1500 RPM, is the energy it takes to spin a normal motor up to 3,000 RPM.
Flywheel or Not, at any gearing ratio, it appears that you will lose about half of your energy to heat and EMF with this set-up.
That's before even analyzing friction, or imbalances in the pulley system.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 06, 2016, 08:47:30 AM
this Alternator shown in the picture is not very efficient. it generates about 50% of the energy consumed to spin it up to whatever RPM you want to generate at.
put in short, the energy this generator outputs at 1500 RPM, is the energy it takes to spin a normal motor up to 3,000 RPM.
Flywheel or Not, at any gearing ratio, it appears that you will lose about half of your energy to heat and EMF with this set-up.
That's before even analyzing friction, or imbalances in the pulley system.
Thanks For Info