Chas Campbell Motor

[winkle]

[Patrick]

....it just seems bizarre to get so freaked out if people are skeptical to your idea.
Where is the benefit to all the, "Then I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down."?
If we look at Bessler ; he suffered a lot of public humiliation from people ( a few people in particular like Gartner). He was always articulate in his response. Yes, sometimes he was confrontational and even harsh and gruff but he never physically threatened anybody and never "lost it."
Sure it's okay to disagree, even with enthusiasm and vigor; that's what makes for a great discussion board! But direct malicious hatred really just leads nowhere. (I should know!)
Personally it looks to me like Chas Campbell has created an impressive flywheel device but that's about it. A person may enjoy throwing themself at his feet,...but six months from now they'll feel like a dupe.

[Wheeler]

Patrick
Thanks for the clear perception on this.
I have noticed sometimes when children, (even adults) will create a distraction if they are suddenly caught or find that they are incorrect.

The creation of (somebody's trying to pick a fight with me) phycology is to try to put the blame on someone.

If you can get kicked out, you don't have to continue defending something that has failed.

[MrTim]

I think Epi is more upset (because he's claiming to have a "working" FE device RIGHT THERE), that we aren't proclaiming him to be the "Messiah of FE".
He'll be back.... ;)

[Thomas]

The link below has the only two video clips of the Chas Campbell motor, that I know of.

1. The first clip shows the system running without the big wheel and a later clip shows it running with the big wheel.

2. I also noticed that the clip with the big wheel has a large red inner ring that appears to always be off center.

Does anyone else find this interesting or have any comments?

Thomas

http://merlib.org/node/5216

[Fletcher]

This is my laymans opinion of what I think chas has got, but I'm not into electronics at all. He appears to be using a gravity OOB wheel, flywheels & motor/generators & supposedly gets more energy out than in by a phase/time delay effect. The flywheels smooth the draw of energy & get the OOB wheel past its sticking points [or shift the weights], they also allow the various tools & lights etc to draw energy for short periods.

If epi were still objective about it [& clearly he is not judging by his replies here] he would have remembered the one acid test, the cardinal rule of proving claims of more energy out than in. Once revolving, the system should be able to be disconnected from the mains & the output fed back into the drive to prove a self sustaining system.

If with no load [other than normal losses] the setup can continue to revolve at the same revolutions [wheel & flywheels] for a significant period then he has a self running system able to make up its energy deficits. If it can do that [unloaded] then additional loads can be added to draw energy from the system. If it still does not deplete the energy reverses stored in the flywheels & OOB wheel then the flywheels & OOB wheel should accelerate up to optimal revolutions again [assuming they slow down while loads are drawn] & he has found a self runner that can also preform useful work.

The key is that any system must be able to draw energy for external work & then accelerate up to revolutions again [full stored potential] of its own accord. If there is no acceleration present after draw down then imo it is no better than a battery powered device that simply uses flywheels for energy storage & redistribution.

Now, the electronic guys here & over on overunity.com can suggest how to do the appropriate measurements of energy in & out. Not just the amps & volts at a particular slice in time but from the very start to the very end of the test i.e. the quanta of energy consumed & supplied to the system. That's not my area of interest so I'll leave it to them to devise a conclusive protocol & measurement system that a bus can't be driven thru. Until I see their comments after the test is agreed too & run I will keep playing humpty dumpty until chas & epi prove otherwise.

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

I do have a background in electricity and electronics. I Have seen many so called over-unity devices, motor/generator or stationary units that the inventor claimed more out than in. None of these have ever held up to scrutiny by anyone knowing the basics.

my two favorite scammers are Tom Beardon and his so-called MEG and Dennis Lee with his Sundance generator and Humming Bird motor. These two hit the public each time a new generation of gullibles are ripe.

IMO playing with coils, conductors and related laws such as Ohms, Lenz, Maxwell,Gauss, Kirchhoff, not to mention reluctance, inductance and all the other goodies. I came to the conclusion that any device relying on electromagnets or just plain conductance is bound to fail due to resistance and heat loss.

You will never get more out of a piece of wire than you put in.

Now as technology improves and the day comes when we have 100% ambient temperature super conductors I will gladly eat these words. So far permanent magnets are the closest thing we have, unfortunately they are as obstinate as Gravity

Now I could talk about all the electrical related physical laws until I am blue in the face! That is why I pursue Gravity, I only have ONE law to overcome and that is called gravity itself!

Ralph

[Patrick]

Thomas, you asked for comments on the link you posted;

Quote:

"Chas is seeking Grants from philanthropic foundations and still wishes to give his device away. "!!

for more information and an opportunity to help Chas please visit http://www.panacea-bs.org/kiss_yer_cash_goodbye.htm

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

Thought you may find this of interest regarding Chas Campbell and my earlier posts.

http://www.qsl.net/ns8o/Induction_Generator.html

Ralph

[winkle]

Poor Chas, does he have any idea of the disgusting human being he's dealing with?

I'm now living in fear incase Epi "PM's" me a picture of his biceps.
How will I sleep at night?

...sad!

speaking of biceps check these guys out

[jim_mich]

IMO playing with coils, conductors and related laws such as Ohms, Lenz, Maxwell,Gauss, Kirchhoff, not to mention reluctance, inductance and all the other goodies. I came to the conclusion that any device relying on electromagnets or just plain conductance is bound to fail due to resistance and heat loss.

Hmmm, I think I've heard somthing like this before? Oh yes..

No one had ever succeeded in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law could only be the Conservation of Energy.

[rlortie]

Jim,

Regarding Hermann Helmholtz famous quote, especially regarding electrical devices I am in total agreement.

I also stated that magnets were as obstinate as gravity, both being considered a conservative force.

Can one conservative force be used with another to perform work. Most will say no! But if I place two Radio shack doughnut magnets in reverse polarity on a vertical held pencil. the top magnet will defy (oppose, resist) gravity!

I call the distance between the magnets the maximum force of gravity. Therefore I say we have a gradient between gravity and a magnetic field. It is my belief that where ever there is gradient there is energy potential capable of performing work.

Obviously there is a force or energy being used here to suspend the magnet. The suspended magnet represents the mass negating gravity, and we have the time factor that it is left suspended in place.

I have magnets suspended in a repel mode that have been doing so for years without any sign of depletion. All that is needed to fulfill the formula of "Work" is motion.

I do not buy the lame duck excuse that magnets soon wear out when placed in a repel mode. This is often the excuse used by so called inventors of permanent magnetic motors after the investment scam has reached its peak.

Ralph

[graham]

Ralph, your magnets are not performing work , they are just in a state of equilibrium.
You could just as well say that a table is perfoming work when your coffee cup is sitting on the table.

Find a way to turn the magnetic field on and off and you'll get my attention.

Graham

[rlortie]

Graham,

Appears I have your attention! :-)

Note that I did not say the magnets were producing work, I stated the only thing missing to qualify as work was motion.

Believe me I have debated magnets for over fifty years, and no pun intended but I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard of the coffee cup or a book sitting on the table.

Yes they are in a state of equilibrium, gravity verses magnet, to have equilibrium you must have gradient. The coffee cup on the table is performing the same act as the string on a ball representing centripetal force, being in equilibrium with the Centrifugal force. Change the value and something is going to give.

Push down on the magnet and it will recover as soon as you let go. So the next quote is you only get back what you put in. So once again no work is accomplished. But! you and the magnet both did "work" while in motion and to my knowledge there was no energy loss in the magnets via heat or friction.

For your part it did cost you calories to push down on the magnet but was there any expense to the magnets?

Some times when I get frustrated I try to stick a magnet on my sheet rock walls or hang a book on the side of my refrigerator. LOL!

IMO some day some one will find a way to use gravity to overcome what is commonly called the "sticky spot" in a magnetic motor. All you need is equilibrium as like poles meet using gravity and then let the magnets repel on their own and you have "Work"

If interested I will explain my opinion on how I believe time can be used to ones benefit in a magnetic mechanism.

Ralph

[Thomas]

I don't know about turning a permanent magnet's magnetic field off and on, but I have heard about materials that can block a magnetic field. As far as I know, it's not possible. I've never seen anything to prove it can be done.

Tom