Chas Campbell free power motor

[wattsup]

@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

[Prophmaji]

hi,
so does it work on its own? please show us blueprint.

thanks

oh and welcome to overunity.com


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.

[GraViTaR]

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".

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

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."

[Liberty]

hi,
so does it work on its own? please show us blueprint.

thanks

oh and welcome to overunity.com


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??