Chas Campbell free power motor

[tinu]

@ 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

What you have posted is correct, Hum.

For n=12 slots for balls, Rxet/Rint<3.8763

In the general case, Rint>=Rext*sin(pi/n)

Or, by extracting Rext results that: maximum Rext=Rint/(sin(pi/n))

According to the above, for Rint=1 and n=12, where n is the number of slots on the inner (smaller) wheel, it results that Rext = 3.8637, pretty close to your figure.
(Please check it again in Autocad if you can; there are the same 3 last digits, just mixed)

Anyway, replace Rint, Rext and n with any figure one may want and, voila, the result comes out.

However, the device is not working; it is hard to make a general demonstration valid in absolutely any conceivable case but once the main parameters are fixed (like the number of balls, Rint/Rext etc.) it results so.
Sorry for the bad news, good folks.

Tinu

P.S. Don?t bother gaby; he?s above us all; well above and out of this world?

[srawofni]

On YouTube

Chas Campbell - Gravity Wheel - How It Works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67n40cD7AFw

[hartiberlin]

Hi All,
can we please get back to the topic and not begin flame wars over here ?

Probably the skeptics are right, that this wheel can not work,
but I did not see anyone yet disprove my torque calculation with a
different calculation ?
So again,
where are my errors ?
The 3.8763:1  limit Humbuger suggest is just a design limit for a contineous
running wheel, but if you stop the wheel for a moment and let the new
upcoming ball run  out to 4x distance  so it has enough time to propel
the wheel there at 4:1 distance, then there is no  3.8763:1 limit !

So again,
can somebody show a torque calculation, where I was wrong ?

Please I only accept a torque calculation over all the involved 8 balls
in the system.
Thanks.

[Humbugger]

Tinu,

It could well be that the number Autocad gave me was off, coincidentally having the same digits, because at one point I scaled the drawing using an imprecise 0.3333 for 1/3.



"P.S. Don?t bother gaby; he?s above us all; well above and out of this world?"

[edit]  [Later, I looked at this again and I realized that you were not referring to me as "he".  You were referring to Gaby.  In my defensive frame of mind of the moment, I saw a comma after the word "bother" and thought you were talking to Gaby about me.  In any case, it gave me an opportunity to address those who do perceive me as being arrogant.]

Do I really come off as that arrogant?  No wonder it's so hard for anyone to ever admit that I'm right!  I'm truly saddened if that's what everyone thinks but I will stand on any fact I've stated anywhere in this forum.  I have also frequently admitted that I have little or no expertise or knowledge in many areas.  I do have a hard time restraining myself when people base scientific arguments on clearly false premises or when a blatant error in logic seems to be purposely and stubbornly ignored.

I only kick at castles made of sand.  I guess that makes me look like a bully sometimes, but the tide will wash them away if I don't stomp them first. In my older age now, I'm usually more content to sit and watch them wash away in the sunset. 

But if a flimsy-looking castle of sand has a huge sign on it proclaiming it to be totally indestructible and impervious to all kicking, and there is a guy selling tickets as if it were the ninth wonder of the world, I guess I just can't resist!

None of us has yet produced any free energy!   We can all claim fallible mortal status on that accord.

Humbugger

[Humbugger]

Hi All,
can we please get back to the topic and not begin flame wars over here ?

Probably the skeptics are right, that this wheel can not work,
but I did not see anyone yet disprove my torque calculation with a
different calculation ?
So again,
where are my errors ?
The 3.8763:1  limit Humbuger suggest is just a design limit for a contineous
running wheel, but if you stop the wheel for a moment and let the new
upcoming ball run  out to 4x distance  so it has enough time to propel
the wheel there at 4:1 distance, then there is no  3.8763:1 limit !

So again,
can somebody show a torque calculation, where I was wrong ?

Please I only accept a torque calculation over all the involved 8 balls
in the system.
Thanks.

The error was in the assumption that there was always at least one ball on the wheel at 4:1 (not the case) and most of your calculations showed two balls, which is never the case at any ratio above 3.8xxx no matter if the wheel is stopped or at any speed and even if the balls can travel instantaneously on the feed ramps.

It seems like you still don't see my point.  If the wheel were 100 times larger and the ramps were level, there would almost never be a time when any ball was on the right side of the wheel even if the balls travelled on the ramps at light speed. 

Your torque calculations failed to acknowledge that for a 4:1 ratio, there are brief times when no ball is on the right half of the wheel and there can never be two balls there.  Stopping the wheel or travel speed of the balls on the ramp is not relevant.

Am i wrong?

Humbugger