Chas Campbell Flywheel Generator

[Humbugger]

I share Hans' opinion of the potential. 

I'll keep my comments very short and try to stay out of it here for the most part. 

If I see any snake-oil salesman claims of great arcing torrents of free energy based on obtuse inaccurate suspicious output peak pulse power levels into reactive loads measured with rusted fish scales, Ouija boards and pulse-clutched deProny brakes, I will probably chime in with some little tirade or two.

Please watch out for the hocus pocus time/power/energy/pulsed output vs. steady input shell game.  There is plenty of opportunity to fool yourselves and "the audience" into thinking you've got OU when really you're at 53% energy efficiency.

No pretending VAR are watts and no comparing peak instantaneous output pulses against average continuous input...you know...the regular flim flam stuff. 

Measure the total actual useful forward energy flow with good trustworthy instruments, correct loads and proper techniques and old Humbugger will just sit and watch.




Humbugger Out


And remember...there are prizes!   Red and black stars for bad boys; gold stars for good boys!  And girls, too!

[wattsup]

@Hum

I get what you're saying about test results and this is of great concern to me also. This is why I am thinking that we should not base tests on a generator output because each model generator will perform differently.

This is why I am proposing that the generator be removed from the test and instead to use a test bench as shown below, or as can be convened mutually.

Water is water, pressure is pressure and flow is flow.

Would this be an acceptable method where the results could be measured and compared apples to apples?

Also, the flywheel could be designed in a way to permit adding or removing layers for more or less weight to test under different conditions.

Replication cost would not be that great so I may decide to build one. But I'll have to look at this closer for a while before I decide.

[mscoffman]

I believe that a Wimshurst electrostatic generator
has a COP>1 similar to that of a heatpump, and like
the heatpump and the freon based dipping bird it uses the
environment to supply energy in this case a continuing source
of non-ionized  matter. If the environment cannot make sufficient
non-ionized  matter available then environment local to machine
undergoes what some people euphemistically would call a
'radiant energy event' a general electrostatic breakdown of
the nearby environmental/and the machine's own, insulators.
Ionized matter is somewhat of an unusual form of matter
in that it can simultaneously be considered to be in surplus,
ie. have an electrostatic charge and also to be in deficit,
ie. have a lack of electrons depending on which operational
point of view one wishes to take. Electrostatic charge is
measured in voltage and number of electrons or coulombs
charge, while electrodynamic instantaneous energy ie.
power is measured in volts multiplied by amperes or watts.

The Testatika machine is such a self running wimshurst
electrostatic type generator that uses a vacuum tube
radio frequency oscillator to create a HV/RF/AC signal
that is stepped down using RF transformers, rectified
and DC stepped down again through an inverse capacitive
voltage multiplier (divider). So the Testatika machine
runs itself and supplies energy run user loads without
a direct source of energy but using the environment
to recycle the matter containing the energy it receives.
Unlike a heatpump though, its energy is already in
upgraded form, electrodynamic potential static electricity
and requires only simple relatively efficient systems to
downconvert electrical potential energy to the electro-
dynamic form of voltage and current. It is a better basis
then using heat for a self-running system because it energy
does not have to run through a Carnot cycle heat engine
to be recovered. This machine and others like them are
considered to be within the 'free electron machine'
classification. While I think these work according to
above model I currently fail to see any reason to call
any of these machines Zero Point Energy (ZPE) producers.

Some of the Bedini Motors self run using magnetic
wheels rotating in air. These rotating wheels create a
static electric charge. The School Girl Motor which is
Bedini's most famous self running system and actually
has three different PMM energy supplies built into the
one unit. (1) They are magnetic power field mills, taking
energy from other machine's stray magnetic fields due
to its open field coil construction techniques. (2) They
receive static electrical charge due to their wheel
with its magnet drive coil also performing the function
of electrostatic brush. (3) And finally they get the
majority of their power from a pulse process that
causes gain to occur inside acid/lead storage batteries.
Bedini calls this (2) 'radiant energy' but us electrodynamics
paradigm-2 people know it as static electric charge.

Having intentional static electricity flowing in circuitry
has it's downside though, in that it makes life difficult
for instrumentation. It will tend to damage digital meters
and computer interfaced instruments. So you often see these
experimenters resorting to electromechanical meters because
they are far less susceptible to static electric damage.
Capacitors too, absolutely do not like any applied voltages
beyond their working voltage so SGM circuitry often lacks
capacitors that would assist with amplifier stability problems.

Charles Campbell Overunity Motor Generator most probably operates
in the same way. Wheels spinning in air and belt friction produce
and move static electric charge. The transducer (the thing that
converts static electric charge to electrical current) is either
the motor, the generator, or especially acid/lead storage batteries
(if present). These systems tend to stop operating overunity if they
have a metal frame which is properly connected to an earth
ground.

Sorry for the length of this post but a lot of the above
information seems not to be known and often remains hidden
from most experimenters, so I thought I would lay it all out.

Mark S. Coffman

[gaby de wilde]

thanks mark, that's a nice perspective.

[wattsup]

@mscoffman

Thank you also for your kind information and also welcome to the overunity.com forum.

As you can tell, we are a bunch of die-hards, often stubborn and mostly enthusiastic in the endeavors for free energy systems.

From your information, if I have understood it well enough, there is a possibility that static charges are being generated by turning wheels, etc., and that this may be picked up by the motor or generator. Although this type of potential gain in energy is not a bad thing in itself if you take the perspective of a us who work in OU, since any energy from any source is welcome, this energy should not be obtainable in one condition and not in another, since the apparatus in question could be used in varying methods with the expectation of performance in all circumstances.

From this, I am therefore more inclined to reduce this static charge by grounding all metals parts. By doing so this would reduce the influence of such charges on the system, therefore permitting to measure the performance based on the actual rotational/mass gain of such a system.

So, we should take this into consideration and add a line to the build specs calling for a grounding of the metals, or designing the system with metal supports, etc., that can be easily grounded.