Chas Campbell free power motor

[Humbugger]

>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

[hansvonlieven]

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

[hansvonlieven]

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

[zero]

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.

[fletcher]

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.