Chas Campbell free power motor

[linda933]

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

[Omnibus]

@linda933,

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.

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.

[Eddy Currentz]

@linda933,

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.

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

[hansvonlieven]

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.



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

[Omnibus]

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.



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.