Chas Campbell free power motor

[sevich]

HAHAHAHA, what an idiot you are. Priceless.

@ garbage de wilde

You really should take your head out of Itseung's back side because being a "yes man" as you are won't help you at all either way Bro!

Lawrence (Itseung888) has had this forum and others like it on the longest perpetual motion TEASE in the history of the internet (second only to George Kunstler...oops, or maybe the other way around)  But even If he has something that works, then the way he's gone about it with his "know all aproach" has done endless damage to his cause.....it's too late now, the damage is done!

[Jimboot]

Can the kids who were fighting over at the STeorn forum please go back there. Let's keep on topic.

[Humbugger]

@ Sevich, Gaby, Jimboot, Stefan

Do you guys see and understand what I'm trying to get across here?  Divert your attention to the Charles wheel diagram for a moment and tell me what you each think about what I've posted just here.

Thanks,

Humbugger

[gaby de wilde]

Can the kids who were fighting over at the STeorn forum please go back there. Let's keep on topic.

Exactly my point, but it's good to assault the skeptics sometimes.

They are here to defame the serious discussion after all.

I thought we were pretty close to proving with simple straightforward torque calculations that the wheel will never cycle itself, except for this misunderstanding.

No you have not even begun to suggest improvements. To make the leap of imagination your mind could fit around everything everyone else can think of is erroneous. It easy to show you you will never get your logic moving towards a goal like that.

So you want the exact same mass going up as going down with surplus energy left.

What modifications do you suggest to accomplish this?

[Humbugger]

Gaby demonstates that he was not following the earlier discussion where Stefan suggested that Charles's wheel could not work unless the ratio of outer radius to inner radius were larger than Charles 2:1 ratio.  Stefan did simple torque arm math that convincingly showed this for the 2:1 case. 

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg48064.html#msg48064

Others joined in, I among them, and an excellent discussion raged for an hour or more.  I don't recall Gaby participating.  One of the ideas proposed was that there was no limit on the ratio.  Another was that there would always be at least one ball on the right side of the wheel no matter the size.  Another was that there are times when two balls ride the right side when the ratio is 4:1.

All three of those assertions are untrue and I set out to show that.  All of it simply leads to the conclusion, if the simple math is done correctly, that the torque moments are always equal and opposite for a full cycle. 

This appears to be true even when we disregard all friction and we allow the balls the magical freedom to travel friction-free and with no applied motive force along unsloped ramps at any speed we want to imagine.  In other words, even in an idealized setup, the wheel will not turn of its own power.

Humbugger