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

[Zeitmaschine]

So said that the lever can't move instantaneously when the pendulum is on its exact vertical position. If it can not move instantaneous, it would then take a defined time period to move.

So, then the theory of your illustration (movement in an instant) is not valid, because of the time period in order to move the mass of the lever and of the bob. And this opens all doors to a completely different outcome, meaning the theory obviously does not match the reality.

Inertia in an electric circuit is prevalent,  Inductance is your prime example of inertia,  odd..?? no, not in a symmetrical universe

Is the universe symmetrical? As far as I know, time is not symmetrical. A action in a forward played video makes sense, but when the video is played in reverse it make no sense at all.

Actually, Kapanaze claims he gets surplus energy from the course of time itself.

This no longer the correct understanding om how to see current (e.g. electron flow).   

Then magnetic fields do no longer influence electrons and how they move or not move? Completely new physics! This is strange indeed.

If you want to work out a specific problem, there are many valid scientific calculation formulas for that pendulum-lever device.

The formulas on the Milkovic website say that it works in theory, but the tricky point is to do it practically. At least when it comes to a self-runner. So the Milkovic formula (see below) is valid or not? What is velocity 1 and velocity 2?

The radio configuration you are referring to is only suitable for a low freq receiver (AM ~ 1Mhz) with very limited selectivity.

To make that configuration work on higher frequency as used today would be close to impossible.

I always thought higher frequency is more suitable for transmitting energy. An inverter power supply is smaller than a power supply working with a 50Hz transformer at the same rating.

Each answer creates two new question, I guess.

[Red_Sunset]

Zeit,

I thought it was as clear as it could be, in post :  Reply #158 on: May 27, 2015, 05:41:22 PM »

Zeit,
Do not take any statement as ABSOLUTE.  That sure would be confusing.
I proposed a logical step by step flow of operation of an IDEAL (not a practical) model.
The question to ask is, does every step make sense?   Even if it make sense that would mean it is probably true, but not necessary absolutely true.  Only practical dependable validation can confirm the accuracy of the statement.

What do we have as counter argument.
1.. Milkovic has a website showing his device
2.. The video is taken from a complete wrong angle to show impact of pivot movement on the swing (why didn't he take that shot perpendicular, I would guess as a technical person he would be attentive to that ), so I do not give it much accuracy value ( I would NOT use it as evidence)
3..  Do we have any dependable validation to suggest OU  (ease of use, yes)

To come back to the impact of dropping the pivot.
We have 2 extremes and 1 in between,
1.. No drop, only velocity (inertia)
2.. Drop instantaneous  (no velocity only weight)
3.. Drop over a specific swing angle  (velocity & centrifugal)

In the ideal model, the drop happens in a finit time frame, this effectively obliterates the velocity vector ( confirmation would be welcome).     In a practical model, the drop happens over a defined time period, then there is velocity and the centrifugal will manifest itself. I am not completely done to the exact results that would come out of that.

When it comes to electronic equivalence,  there is a lot of similarity but there isn't necessary an exact 1 to1 equivalence for everything.  You rather should see the comparison in a general sense of symmetry in nature, in the mechanics of conversion and feedback mechanisms.

Red
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 08:07:11 PM by Red_Sunset »

[Red_Sunset]

...........................
.................................
Each answer creates two new question, I guess.

It sure does !, Red

[Zeitmaschine]

I thought it was as clear as it could be, in post :  Reply #158 on: May 27, 2015, 05:41:22 PM »

The only thing here in the forums that is clear is that nothing is ever clear.

Is it clear, that the lever-pendulum device works as claimed (more energy out than in), or is it clear that this can't work?

Is it clear, that a free energy device is generally possible, or is it clear that such a thing never can be constructed?

Is it clear, that v1 and v2 in the formula refers to the velocity of the pendulum when it swings up and down, or is this the velocity of the pivot when it moves up and down, or both?

Clear is just one thing: To me it looks sometimes strangely like as if one wants to rewrite the physics books, not because of the discovery of free energy, but to hide the possibility of its discovery.

[MarkE]

The only thing here in the forums that is clear is that nothing is ever clear.

Is it clear, that the lever-pendulum device works as claimed (more energy out than in), or is it clear that this can't work?

Is it clear, that a free energy device is generally possible, or is it clear that such a thing never can be constructed?

Is it clear, that v1 and v2 in the formula refers to the velocity of the pendulum when it swings up and down, or is this the velocity of the pivot when it moves up and down, or both?

Clear is just one thing: To me it looks sometimes strangely like as if one wants to rewrite the physics books, not because of the discovery of free energy, but to hide the possibility of its discovery.

Where is there any energy out?  Maybe you would be so kind as to show net external work being done by your favorite two cycle pendulum.  Then we can compare that work performed to the input work and test your over unity claim.