Tom,
The most popular is the element Bismuth which has high diamagnetic properties and a metal alloy called Mu-metal. They both have shielding properties but IMO not enough to consider them as an on-off switch.
Ralph
Chas Campbell Motor
Moderator: scott
re: Chas Campbell Motor
OK Ralph let's hear it , I do have a liking for magnets. My first attempts at PM were permanent magnet driven marvels. I was inspired by our dear friend Howard Johnson.If interested I will explain my opinion on how I believe time can be used to ones benefit in a magnetic mechanism.
All this was long before I was to read of the successful labors of Herr Bessler. Once I did learn of JB, magnets never held quite the attraction that they once did.
Graham
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Graham,
OH yes! Howard Johnson, New York Times Saturday April 25, 1979 and then Science and Mechanics Spring issue of 1980 (17 pages). His 32 page paper presented at the UNITAR conference November-December 1979. Six years of battling with the patent and TradeMark office Board of Appeals to finally receive his 10 page patent based on a plastic toy car running on a magnetic track.
Amazing what Science and Mechanics illustrators did to depict a motor that never materialized!
He is my hero, not for his alleged motor, but for setting the predilection with the PTO that permanent magnets constitute an energy source and therefore do not qualify as perpetual motion!
Now on to subject of time; This is, I hope a simple example of using velocity or short duration of time to overcome the Gate or sticky spot.
Two pendulums hanging from the same axis one in front of the other. Bobs on both are magnets with opposing fields. At rest neither is hanging straight down but are repelling one another. Now with imagination set them in motion in alternate directions with matched velocity. When they meet their relative velocity to each other is doubled. Repel time is cut in half. this double inertia with gravity overcomes the repel equilibrium, after passing one magnet reaches amplitude and starts falling forcing the other magnetic bob to repel to a higher amplitude.
Now take this same concept and think of a balance staff spring wheel in a wind up watch that is oscillating. Stator is moving in the opposite direction of rotor until like poles pass then the stator changes direction and chases the rotor until the spring tension causes it to recycle.
I look at this action in motion sitting on my desk daily in the form of a electromagnetic driven mobile that I have slightly modified! No it is not perpetual as it does use a battery via a "Hall" switch that uses less current than any pulse motor. My point is that every 180 degrees of rotation the increased relative velocity (reduced time) is enough to overcome the gate and give me 360 degree rotation.
Ralph
OH yes! Howard Johnson, New York Times Saturday April 25, 1979 and then Science and Mechanics Spring issue of 1980 (17 pages). His 32 page paper presented at the UNITAR conference November-December 1979. Six years of battling with the patent and TradeMark office Board of Appeals to finally receive his 10 page patent based on a plastic toy car running on a magnetic track.
Amazing what Science and Mechanics illustrators did to depict a motor that never materialized!
He is my hero, not for his alleged motor, but for setting the predilection with the PTO that permanent magnets constitute an energy source and therefore do not qualify as perpetual motion!
Now on to subject of time; This is, I hope a simple example of using velocity or short duration of time to overcome the Gate or sticky spot.
Two pendulums hanging from the same axis one in front of the other. Bobs on both are magnets with opposing fields. At rest neither is hanging straight down but are repelling one another. Now with imagination set them in motion in alternate directions with matched velocity. When they meet their relative velocity to each other is doubled. Repel time is cut in half. this double inertia with gravity overcomes the repel equilibrium, after passing one magnet reaches amplitude and starts falling forcing the other magnetic bob to repel to a higher amplitude.
Now take this same concept and think of a balance staff spring wheel in a wind up watch that is oscillating. Stator is moving in the opposite direction of rotor until like poles pass then the stator changes direction and chases the rotor until the spring tension causes it to recycle.
I look at this action in motion sitting on my desk daily in the form of a electromagnetic driven mobile that I have slightly modified! No it is not perpetual as it does use a battery via a "Hall" switch that uses less current than any pulse motor. My point is that every 180 degrees of rotation the increased relative velocity (reduced time) is enough to overcome the gate and give me 360 degree rotation.
Ralph
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Ralph
How dose this differ from hanging two springs in the same manner?
Somehow I can not see that you think this to be something other than a childs experiment.
If you set two pendulums in motion, you have used energy to do this.
Once the pendulum is let free it begins a stopping action.
Two springs or magnets in opposite pole arrangement will just kill it faster.
Repel time is not cut in half. It is simple action reaction.
Please advise.
How dose this differ from hanging two springs in the same manner?
Two pendulums hanging from the same axis one in front of the other. Bobs on both are magnets with opposing fields. At rest neither is hanging straight down but are repelling one another. Now with imagination set them in motion in alternate directions with matched velocity. When they meet their relative velocity to each other is doubled. Repel time is cut in half. this double inertia with gravity overcomes the repel equilibrium, after passing one magnet reaches amplitude and starts falling forcing the other magnetic bob to repel to a higher amplitude.
Somehow I can not see that you think this to be something other than a childs experiment.
If you set two pendulums in motion, you have used energy to do this.
Once the pendulum is let free it begins a stopping action.
Two springs or magnets in opposite pole arrangement will just kill it faster.
Repel time is not cut in half. It is simple action reaction.
Please advise.
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Ralph, then there is an electromagnet in the base that repels both bobs as they begin to swing upwards.The whole model just gives the illusion of PM.No it is not perpetual as it does use a battery via a "Hall" switch that uses less current than any pulse motor.
As far as the repel time being halved I don't see that anything is gained from it, otherwise you would not need the electromagnet.
That issue of "Science & Mechanics" with its eyecatching cover planted the seeds of the possibility of PM in my little head.
Never before had I given PM a thought, and never since have I been able to dismiss it.
Graham
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Ralph, I've been thinking about your elecromagnetic mobile some more and your theory about repel time being cut in half.
Now if it IS cut in half as the two magnetic bobs approach each other on the downswing, then it will also be cut in half during the repel sequence for the upswing. So It all cancels out.
However if a load were applied to both pendulums just after they pass one another in effect slowing them down, you might see some sort of net gain.
The load could be in the form of springs.
I don't think this is the same as your balance staff analogy ??
Graham
Now if it IS cut in half as the two magnetic bobs approach each other on the downswing, then it will also be cut in half during the repel sequence for the upswing. So It all cancels out.
However if a load were applied to both pendulums just after they pass one another in effect slowing them down, you might see some sort of net gain.
The load could be in the form of springs.
I don't think this is the same as your balance staff analogy ??
Graham
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Graham and Wheeler,
OK! I tried writing a simple explanation of the action reaction, I guess I tried to make it too simple as you both missed the objective.
The electromagnet only repels one bob that is osculating It does not have any connection electrical or mechanically to the secondary that turns full circle. Remember I did state that it is not perpetual motion.
Call it a childs experiment if you wish and I will not disagree, but you are missing the objective of its simplicity. The fact that it shows what experimenters has been attempting to do with the Milkovic device and failing. It simply shows 360 rotation magnetic transference from a pulsating pendulum.
I will not debate this, but many claim magnets appear to have more repelling force than attracting. When playing with magnets I always design things to operate in a repel mode. The only exception is the top adjustable thrust bearing in my vertical magnetic mounted Faraday Generator.
OK! I tried writing a simple explanation of the action reaction, I guess I tried to make it too simple as you both missed the objective.
It is not cut in half on the upswing as both magnets are repelling in the same direction. Apparently is does not cancel out otherwise I would not be getting 360 rotation.Now if it IS cut in half as the two magnetic bobs approach each other on the downswing, then it will also be cut in half during the repel sequence for the upswing. So It all cancels out.
You are not visualizing that one pendulum is rotating 360 degrees in a constant direction. No load is required as the other changes directions shortly after inertia drives them past the sticky spot. The mention of balance staff springs would only apply to a horizontal designed concept.However if a load were applied to both pendulums just after they pass one another in effect slowing them down, you might see some sort of net gain.
The load could be in the form of springs.
I don't think this is the same as your balance staff analogy ??
Ralph, then there is an electromagnet in the base that repels both bobs as they begin to swing upwards.The whole model just gives the illusion of PM.
As far as the repel time being halved I don't see that anything is gained from it, otherwise you would not need the electromagnet.
The electromagnet only repels one bob that is osculating It does not have any connection electrical or mechanically to the secondary that turns full circle. Remember I did state that it is not perpetual motion.
Somehow I can not see that you think this to be something other than a childs experiment.
Call it a childs experiment if you wish and I will not disagree, but you are missing the objective of its simplicity. The fact that it shows what experimenters has been attempting to do with the Milkovic device and failing. It simply shows 360 rotation magnetic transference from a pulsating pendulum.
You have repel time as two opposing magnets approach each other. As both are in motion in opposite directions repel time is reduced by the combined motion relative to each other. Once they pass one changes direction and is now repelling in the same direction. Forcing one into traveling 360 degrees, which would not happen if there was not a differential between the two repel modes. Action and reaction ares not equal.Repel time is not cut in half. It is simple action reaction
Springs are not required in the vertical mode. They would kill it as you cannot maintain a 360 degree rotation with a spring. The magnets are not in opposite poles as this would attract them and yes would kill it. They are in like pole arrangement and never attract.Two springs or magnets in opposite pole arrangement will just kill it faster.
I will not debate this, but many claim magnets appear to have more repelling force than attracting. When playing with magnets I always design things to operate in a repel mode. The only exception is the top adjustable thrust bearing in my vertical magnetic mounted Faraday Generator.
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Ralph, can you post a pic of your magnetic mobile ? I need to see what you have there. Thanks.
Graham
PS. If you're looking for magnets
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm?sub ... tegory=117
Graham
PS. If you're looking for magnets
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm?sub ... tegory=117
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Graham,
Thanks for the link, I have ordered from http://www.wondermagnet.com and also you can find a lot of magnets in your link at Harbor freight.
They do not give them away anymore at my local outlet but I use get speakers from my local Radio shack store for free. I have three of the plastic milk crates full of them.
I will PM you a picture of my novelty mobile, You will recognize it as it is a popular item seen sitting on desks in science fiction movies! Difference being I have tinkered and balanced mine to a point of achieving full rotation.
Ralph
Thanks for the link, I have ordered from http://www.wondermagnet.com and also you can find a lot of magnets in your link at Harbor freight.
They do not give them away anymore at my local outlet but I use get speakers from my local Radio shack store for free. I have three of the plastic milk crates full of them.
I will PM you a picture of my novelty mobile, You will recognize it as it is a popular item seen sitting on desks in science fiction movies! Difference being I have tinkered and balanced mine to a point of achieving full rotation.
Ralph
-
epistemologicide
- Aficionado
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 am
- Location: australia
re: Chas Campbell Motor
1) i am not back
2) i am getting more details and will post them
3) spread this like the herpes bird flu
First build a flywheel that will produce at least twice as much energy as you need to drive your alternator when finished you should have trouble seeing it moving as it runs in its own space, After a few trial runs i built one by having a h-t steel shaft keeyed each end before a flange or a disc was slipped along to the center and welded the flange was then drilled and tapped to take studs, using a router i cut a circle 600mm in diameter out of custom board with a hole in the center to take the shaft this was attached to the flange using studs with washers and lock nuts the second circle had a hole in the center large enough to fit over the flange this was fitted from the other end and screwed to the first wheel by doing this i could try diffrent speeds and drives until i was satisfied i had a combination that would work with what i had which was a .075 hp single phase electric motor and a 3.5 kva alternator,The flywheel ended up being 72mm thick and 590mm in diametor i then fitted a steel band around my wheel this added more power my theory being if you create centrifugal force you can drive anything as long as the wheel keeps spinning I ended up with an alternator fitted with a 4.5inch pulley driven by a 9inch pulley the alternator speed was 3146rpm at that speed it was easy to run electrical applicances for a period now to the most important part to keep the wheel spinning i wanted to build a power grid which had a single power supply to a switch that worked on a roating system to this i would have 6 identical electric motors connected they would all drive to a comon shaft in the center imagn a clock with your motors situated at 1-3-5-7-9-11 , The switch would direct power to one motor at a time with a overlap that provided power to the second before the first was switched off this means one motor is working while the others are cooling down on this drive shaft i would have a smaller flywheel to compensate the power required to drive 6 sets of belts as the motors are like the alternator they require very little power to spin Drive this shaft at approx half the speed of your motors from this shaft double your speed to your main flywheel then using pulleys as large as possible drive your alternator All you need then is a simple device that prevents your alternator producing more power then your system is capable of maintaining. I tried very hard to create enough interest in my invention to be able to fund the end product but i feel i am wasting my time so hopefully one of you good people will have more luck then me ,as for testing one of my original machines it would be a waste of time as no mater who tested it it would not satisify everybody thanks for your interest and good luck,Chas PS I would like this passed on to as many as possible.
2) i am getting more details and will post them
3) spread this like the herpes bird flu
First build a flywheel that will produce at least twice as much energy as you need to drive your alternator when finished you should have trouble seeing it moving as it runs in its own space, After a few trial runs i built one by having a h-t steel shaft keeyed each end before a flange or a disc was slipped along to the center and welded the flange was then drilled and tapped to take studs, using a router i cut a circle 600mm in diameter out of custom board with a hole in the center to take the shaft this was attached to the flange using studs with washers and lock nuts the second circle had a hole in the center large enough to fit over the flange this was fitted from the other end and screwed to the first wheel by doing this i could try diffrent speeds and drives until i was satisfied i had a combination that would work with what i had which was a .075 hp single phase electric motor and a 3.5 kva alternator,The flywheel ended up being 72mm thick and 590mm in diametor i then fitted a steel band around my wheel this added more power my theory being if you create centrifugal force you can drive anything as long as the wheel keeps spinning I ended up with an alternator fitted with a 4.5inch pulley driven by a 9inch pulley the alternator speed was 3146rpm at that speed it was easy to run electrical applicances for a period now to the most important part to keep the wheel spinning i wanted to build a power grid which had a single power supply to a switch that worked on a roating system to this i would have 6 identical electric motors connected they would all drive to a comon shaft in the center imagn a clock with your motors situated at 1-3-5-7-9-11 , The switch would direct power to one motor at a time with a overlap that provided power to the second before the first was switched off this means one motor is working while the others are cooling down on this drive shaft i would have a smaller flywheel to compensate the power required to drive 6 sets of belts as the motors are like the alternator they require very little power to spin Drive this shaft at approx half the speed of your motors from this shaft double your speed to your main flywheel then using pulleys as large as possible drive your alternator All you need then is a simple device that prevents your alternator producing more power then your system is capable of maintaining. I tried very hard to create enough interest in my invention to be able to fund the end product but i feel i am wasting my time so hopefully one of you good people will have more luck then me ,as for testing one of my original machines it would be a waste of time as no mater who tested it it would not satisify everybody thanks for your interest and good luck,Chas PS I would like this passed on to as many as possible.
re: Chas Campbell Motor
LMAOEp wrote:1) i am not back
Just downloaded video from www.overunity.com. It shows Chad's design for his gravity motor in detail. Suffice to say that it doesn't work and is a nice design but the physics ensure it won't work.
Here it is on google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6284&hl=en
Here it is on google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6284&hl=en
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Also note that there is no significant mention of the electrical machine or video of any tests or run-time on that. I'm one of those who has been trying to keep old Ashtweth honest over at ou.com with his testing methods.
Turns out that not only does the gravity wheel absolutely not work and, as noted above, will not work in principal even if all friction and timing constraints are removed, but the electrical machine is a total dud as well.
It was claimed by Charles (and Ashtweth had spread these claims all over his site along with claims that Charles' machines were desperately needed to save third world children) to put out 3500W while sucking up only a mere 800W. The fact is, it drew 1440W with no load at all on the output and squealed to a smoking grinding halt when loaded for less than ten seconds with a pair of 500W light bulbs. Ashtweth refused to take any measurements at that point and dropped the idea of further continuous load testing or presenting any video on that.
He's now back over at Charles' place trying to hook up his famous RV motors to the thing and concocting some kind of "pulsed resonance" output power tests in an attempt to save face and promote the RV stuff.
I got tossed off of ou.com yesterday for "being too skeptical" and repeatedly asking Ashtweth for measurement and video as he had promised and for questioning his never-ending claims that self-running has been achieved using the RV machines with something he calls "the neon circuit".
Ashtweth resorted to vicious personal attacks against me, focusing on the fact that I am presently disabled and bedridden and cannot do "replications". When he was cornered by my persistent and uemotional straightforward questions, he ran whining to Stefan Hartmann who promptly banned me.
I found a great deal of comfort reading this thread and realizing that Ashtweth (Epi) is well known for these kinds of vicious attacks, personal threats, acting as if he were a tyrant capable of denying people access to great revelations and his wildly cheerleading, ignorantly gullible and completely unscientific approach.
In my opinion, he and Panacea are total money-seeking frauds and are doing a huge disservice to the community of thinkers trying to find genuine answers to energy-supply problems.
Anyway, I thought you fellows might enjoy hearing the end of the story on the Charles Campbell machines.
Humbugger
Turns out that not only does the gravity wheel absolutely not work and, as noted above, will not work in principal even if all friction and timing constraints are removed, but the electrical machine is a total dud as well.
It was claimed by Charles (and Ashtweth had spread these claims all over his site along with claims that Charles' machines were desperately needed to save third world children) to put out 3500W while sucking up only a mere 800W. The fact is, it drew 1440W with no load at all on the output and squealed to a smoking grinding halt when loaded for less than ten seconds with a pair of 500W light bulbs. Ashtweth refused to take any measurements at that point and dropped the idea of further continuous load testing or presenting any video on that.
He's now back over at Charles' place trying to hook up his famous RV motors to the thing and concocting some kind of "pulsed resonance" output power tests in an attempt to save face and promote the RV stuff.
I got tossed off of ou.com yesterday for "being too skeptical" and repeatedly asking Ashtweth for measurement and video as he had promised and for questioning his never-ending claims that self-running has been achieved using the RV machines with something he calls "the neon circuit".
Ashtweth resorted to vicious personal attacks against me, focusing on the fact that I am presently disabled and bedridden and cannot do "replications". When he was cornered by my persistent and uemotional straightforward questions, he ran whining to Stefan Hartmann who promptly banned me.
I found a great deal of comfort reading this thread and realizing that Ashtweth (Epi) is well known for these kinds of vicious attacks, personal threats, acting as if he were a tyrant capable of denying people access to great revelations and his wildly cheerleading, ignorantly gullible and completely unscientific approach.
In my opinion, he and Panacea are total money-seeking frauds and are doing a huge disservice to the community of thinkers trying to find genuine answers to energy-supply problems.
Anyway, I thought you fellows might enjoy hearing the end of the story on the Charles Campbell machines.
Humbugger
Last edited by HUMBUGGER on Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Thanks for the update Hum. I look forward to you popping in more regularly - your analytical skills [& down to earth pragmatism] in all areas would be appreciated on this board which also covers the full gambit though we tend to spend more time on gravity & gravity augmented devices.
re: Chas Campbell Motor
Thanks, Fletcher...
Since I'm mostly an electronics guy and since there seems to be a less oppressive attitude about healthy skepticism here, I probably won't be as vocal as I was over there at ou.com. It seems the few voices of reason over there are forced to walk on eggshells amongst a phalanx of cheerleaders. They seem way too focused on replicating things which have never been shown to work or at least which have very vague performance claims.
The pseudo-technical babble, bogus measurements,misuse of terminology and casually-accepted claims of achieving overunity are rampant and run unchecked there and I think Stefan wants to keep it that way to grow the site and sell more ads. It's a real circus of delusions, gurus and goose chases. This forum seems far more grounded in reality.
Humbugger
Since I'm mostly an electronics guy and since there seems to be a less oppressive attitude about healthy skepticism here, I probably won't be as vocal as I was over there at ou.com. It seems the few voices of reason over there are forced to walk on eggshells amongst a phalanx of cheerleaders. They seem way too focused on replicating things which have never been shown to work or at least which have very vague performance claims.
The pseudo-technical babble, bogus measurements,misuse of terminology and casually-accepted claims of achieving overunity are rampant and run unchecked there and I think Stefan wants to keep it that way to grow the site and sell more ads. It's a real circus of delusions, gurus and goose chases. This forum seems far more grounded in reality.
Humbugger