Chas Campbell free power motor

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

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

[Humbugger]

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

[Joh70]

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.

[Dingus Mungus]

@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

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

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

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