BRAZIL - Company is building a Gravity Generator http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

[Zeitmaschine]

This is where you are completely wrong.

Much like a spaceship moving in space it requires no input energy to maintain the same speed and direction as it encounters no resistance. Only changing its' velocity requires energy.

Also wrong. A pendulum constantly changes its velocity (from zero to max) and it requires no additional input energy for that to do (friction losses disregarded).

By the way: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter (that one with the extra coil) is basically also a two-stage oscillator (like the lever with the pendulum). Isn't that a very very odd coincidence, is it?

[Red_Sunset]

Also wrong. A pendulum constantly changes its velocity (from zero to max) and it requires no additional input energy for that to do (friction losses disregarded).

By the way: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter (that one with the extra coil) is basically also a two-stage oscillator (like the lever with the pendulum). Isn't that a very very odd coincidence, is it?

Zeit,

i am getting somewhat confused by you rapid change of objects and their relationship, akin to comparing apples with oranges with celery without explaining what is the exact connection of sameness.

The common denominator leans towards "Oscillator/Oscillation"
Why do you think that Oscillation produces excess energy and how would this excess energy materialize?
Can you demonstrate in more detail, the connection of sameness that supports your quest towards OU.  Where does each produce the excess energy ?  You may be theoretical, even assumptive, proof is not a requirement at this point

1.. The bending swing bar
2.. The pendulum
3.. Milkoviz , 2 stage Osc
4.. Kapanadze Osc
5.. The Magnifying transmitter
6.. The electron oscillation in the atom

Red_Sunset

[Zeitmaschine]

I just have pointed out a very odd coincidence. But there are some more odds and those odds are all pointing to a two-stage parametric oscillator.

1.. The bending swing bar

Swinging is one stage, bending the second stage. Hence we have a two-stage oscillator.

2.. The pendulum

The first stage of a two-stage oscillator. The second stage is not always obvious to recognize.

3.. Milkoviz , 2 stage Osc

He claims that more mechanic energy goes out than in.

4.. Kapanadze Osc

Statement of Kapanadze: »I have found a simple way to keep resonance between two coils.« An electric two-stage oscillator would fit that statement.

5.. The Magnifying transmitter

Tesla claims a magnifying effect due to the use of two coils. I would guess that his claim is the magnification of energy.

6.. The electron oscillation in the atom

Matter can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter (Einstein), hence matter is energy. This strongly suggests that there was once an energy field creating that matter. So what if that energy field does still exsist today and we could tap into it in some way or the other? Perhaps by means of a two-stage oscillator that creates parametric resonance?

And you forgot 7.. - The Stepanov overunity transformer. We can see nothing more than two capacitors and two transformers, but that would nevertheless be a sufficient equipment for the construction of an electric two-stage oscillator.

Bluntly speaking, I can't see any reason why someone should falsely claim overunity out of two transformers and two capacitors, all hidden in plain view. Fake? Mistake? I don't think so.

No, a pendulum (child on swing) is NOT an "energy amplifier". It stores the energy you put into it by pushing, small increments at the resonant frequency, and can build up large amplitudes representing large amounts of _stored energy_.

Exactly that's the point! When a pendulum goes into parametric oscillation (resonance) due to a second oscillator stage, then it will store all energy that it can get from whatever place. But since we have seen the electric experiment with the two Avramenko plugs, we can confirm that there is indeed a kind of an electric energy field around us. The existence of gravitation does not need confirmation, I think.

The pendulum swings like an ordinary pendulum, the lever (the second stage) is connected to gravity. Now an electric oscillator also oscillates just like an ordinary oscillator, but the second coil (the second stage) is connected to ... what? Some sort of an electric field that surrounds us?

Here just another two-stage oscillator - or rather a self-exciting radio receiver? I don't know where user elementSix got this illustration from, but if it works then the phrase »like you have opened the gates of hell« says it all. Think, I would also like to open those gates.

Tesla: Could we produce artificially a »sink« for the energy of the ambient medium to flow in?

Let's see: If the ambient medium in question is gravitation, then the artificial sink would be a sudden reduction (by means of a pendulum) of the weight on one side of the lever (Milkovic), so gravitation can flow in and pull down the other side of the lever. Genius, isn't it?

If done the right way, this should also work with an electric field representing Tesla's ambient medium.

BTW:

And the Finsrud machine is a clever work of art, not any kind of self running perpetual motion machine. The longest it has ever run without being "reset" is 14 days. it contains large springs and heavy weights (Look at the center of the mechanism) and runs by an escapement mechanism that extracts a tiny bit of stored energy every time the ball runs around the tilting track

Any confirmation of this, or pure guesswork? 12 years to build a simple clock mechanism would be the next odd thing, wouldn't it?

And hopefully my thoughts are not too confusing for anyone to follow.

[LibreEnergia]

Also wrong. A pendulum constantly changes its velocity (from zero to max) and it requires no additional input energy for that to do (friction losses disregarded).

You are correct it requires no extra input or energy. However your assumption that a mass rotating about a fixed point has more energy than if the mass were travelling in a straight line is false. Linear and angular momentum is conserved.

Consider a spaceship travelling in a straight line capturing a 'massless rigid rope' attached to a 'massless pivot' and begins to orbit.  It simply converts its linear momentum to angular momentum. No energy is gained or lost. The rope experiences a tension but no work is done by the rope as the length does not change.

Replace the 'rope' with the tensor force of gravity and you'll see you are mistaken in your assumptions.

[tagor]

You are correct it requires no extra input or energy. However your assumption that a mass rotating about a fixed point has more energy than if the mass were travelling in a straight line is false. Linear and angular momentum is conserved.

you are right ...
but , with equivalent energy , a rotating one is more efficient than a penduleum
because the momentum is not reverse

so the double penduleum is a very bad solution !