Chas Campbell free power motor

[esaruoho]

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."

[hartiberlin]

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..

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Stefan,

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

[zero]

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.

[sm0ky2]

@ 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.