12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

[johnny874]

   @All,
Here is a link to one thought he had, and so far it hasn't worked.
Stefan asked when he started this thread if it was what Bessler had found.
I believe so. What I posted in the other thread has a good chance of working.
And it would be what Vjelko considers a feedback loop. It seems the math
has eluded everybody but me.
As things are, my rotary tool bit the dust last night so I will be taking a break
until I can get myself in a better build position.
As for Bessler and the 2OS, Good Luck.

                                                                                        Jim
edited to add; it's about 2/3rds down the page, this is the heading
MATHEMATICAL             & THEORETICAL ANALYSES


http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html#analyses

[fishman]

Tom's innovation migth be worth checking out. And as I mentioned, it is something that could support Vjelko's work.
It would be a big plus for what we are trying to do. Something to think about anyways. And Merry Christmas everyone.
                                                                                                                           Jim

@ Jim, what is "TOM's innovation"?
Any links...

[neptune]

Hi guys , thanks for replies and a happy new year to you all . @Cloxxki .So from what you say , are we to infer that you believe the 2SO is not overunity ? If this is the case do you believe any mechanical device is OU ?  I am not willing to say ay#t this stage if I think 2SO is OU or not . Obviously I think it could be , or I would not waste time on it .My take on how it might work are as follows . Friction and air drag are real forces and my experiments have confirmed that if the pendulum is released from the horizontal , the highest point it will reach is , say 2 Cm below horizontal . So if we allow the pendulum pivot to drop 1 cm at bottom dead centre , then the highest point it will rise to is 3 cms below horizontal . But mathematics show that the pivot moves down with a force of 3 times the pendulum weight due to the addition of centrifugal force .If we ignore or eliminate wind drag and friction , the pendulum will rise to 1 cm below horizontal , for a pivot fall of 1cm. So to restore the system , we need to raise the pendulum bob 1cm at a time when its weight is normal , near its highest point . So if the bob weighs 1 Kg ,input is 1Kg -centimeter , and output is 3 Kg- cm , or an OU of 3 minus losses .

[johnny874]

Tom's innovation migth be worth checking out. And as I mentioned, it is something that could support Vjelko's work.
It would be a big plus for what we are trying to do. Something to think about anyways. And Merry Christmas everyone.
                                                                                                                           Jim

@ Jim, what is "TOM's innovation"?
Any links...

   fishman,
Here's the basic concept. As the pendulum swings downward, it lifts a weight at the bottom of a scissor. If the scissors (2 sections) hang down, there length is 4x (x= length of one lever). When the top scissor is pulled from both sides to open to a spread of 90 degrees (2 45 degree angles), the lateral movement is x*70% and the lift is 4x*30%.
The second section I don't think would require any extra energy to work. This would happen because as the top section opens, the lower section is mirroring it's motion while the load remains the same. Thus more movement with the same energy expenditure.
And when the fulcrum releases the weight that was lifted, it's energy can be put back into the system to keep the pendul swinging and still have a surplus which could rotate a wheel that would act as a shell to cover the mechanics much like a clock has a face.

                                                                               Jim

edited to correct math. if lateral movement is equal to 70%, then lift is 30%.
And 4*.30= 1.2 which of course is more than 1*.70= 0.70
Anyway, it looks good on paper   

[Cloxxki]

Hi guys , thanks for replies and a happy new year to you all . @Cloxxki .So from what you say , are we to infer that you believe the 2SO is not overunity ? If this is the case do you believe any mechanical device is OU ?  I am not willing to say ay#t this stage if I think 2SO is OU or not . Obviously I think it could be , or I would not waste time on it .My take on how it might work are as follows . Friction and air drag are real forces and my experiments have confirmed that if the pendulum is released from the horizontal , the highest point it will reach is , say 2 Cm below horizontal . So if we allow the pendulum pivot to drop 1 cm at bottom dead centre , then the highest point it will rise to is 3 cms below horizontal . But mathematics show that the pivot moves down with a force of 3 times the pendulum weight due to the addition of centrifugal force .If we ignore or eliminate wind drag and friction , the pendulum will rise to 1 cm below horizontal , for a pivot fall of 1cm. So to restore the system , we need to raise the pendulum bob 1cm at a time when its weight is normal , near its highest point . So if the bob weighs 1 Kg ,input is 1Kg -centimeter , and output is 3 Kg- cm , or an OU of 3 minus losses .

I'm no-one's expert, but have been reading up on such systems for a few year, looking for the same holy grail we all are.
Of course I want to believe mechanical overunity to exist.
As I've been reading and pondering on the subject, the idea is forming that it will be quite advanced. I unfortunately lack both the technical English (2nd language) and the physics education to put that into words.
There's speed, acceleration, increased rate of acceleration, etc.
The 2SO I would put on the acceleration level.
I am suspecting that for OU to exist, it will be at least one level higher up, and locked really well.


If you're able to put into formulae what you explained above, I'd be interested to study that.


Someone who above claims 3.25x overunity from math, but can't loop is, IMO is full of it.
Make me a simulated 2SO (hydralics multiplying input) that offers just 2x OU, just as claimed, in the fashion that it's claimed, I'll find a child in the street under the age of 10 to loop it, using only Lego and similar toys. In the span of an hour. I will be supporting of course to make sure the kid doesn't rush off to the game computer prematurely.


A loose thought.
The additional tension on the pendulum can be calculated, right? Not that hard.
If you move the pivot downward at the bottom of the swing though, would that not reduce tension right there and then?


All that you extract from the pendulum and invest into the second stage, the second stage will need to give right back, or the pendulum will hang still shortly.
I do not see a free lunch. Just a lot off misinfo, empty claims, and very bright brains being stuck figuring out a puzzle possibly designed to not fit, but intrigue the best of puzzlers for an eternity, keeping them away from the next puzzle, from progress.