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

[neptune]

LATEST NEWS. Just spent an interesting 10 minutes in the workshop . 10 was long enough because its cold in there .In rough tests , I found that by decreasing the load weight , efficiency went up to 80 to 90 % .My initial idea was to use the heaviest weight it would lift , so as to delay weight lift until just before bottom dead centre .In practice , it looks like this is not the best idea , and extensive further tests are warranted with the current test rig . I plan to do loads of tests with different weights and lift distances , possibly plotting the results on a graph .
        I discovered something else . With practice , I CAN increase the pendulum amplitude by moving the pivot up and down by hand . With a short pendulum [1/2 metre ] things happen fast , and it is not easy to see just what is happening . What I THINK is happening is that for this to gain amplitude, the pivot has to be LOW at the pendulums bottom dead centre , and high at the stroke ends . I this is true it is OPPOSITE to what Jovan Marjanovic predicts in his paper"Keys to understanding the Gravity machines of Veljko Milkovic " I will test this out tomorrow with a 2 metre pendulum , namely a weight on a string , as anyone can . One thing is clear . For the lever to feed energy into the pendulum ,there has to be an exact phase relationship between the two .The question is , which I am working towards answering , is does this phase   .  relationship exist in a working 2SO .I am fed up with typing the word "pendulum" . Can I have an extra key fitted to do it for me ?

[neptune]

@F-Brown .It is interesting that you are getting positive results in simulation .As we have discussed in this thread , building things costs time and money , and we need to know that what we are building is of optimal design .I know virtually nothing about simulation , and i am guessing that you do not do a lot of building . I reckon that if we all worked together , great things could be achieved . You could help builders by pointing the way . Some of the things I ask you to simulate may be impossible , I just dont know . Each test I suggest should be tested with and without friction and aerodynamic drag . Try to simulate a simple device with the classic Milkovic design , namely a pendulum pivoted at one end of a see saw type beam , and a counterweight at the other end of the beam . Run it just long enough for the pendulum to make one swing , left to right .Start with pendulum horizontal .Limit the travel of the see saw to 5 degrees above and 5 degrees below horizontal .You can measure input by measuring how far the end position of the pendulum is below its start point . Output is weight of counterweight times amount it lifted . Questions I would like answered .
1 By what percentage of the pendulum length should the pivot be allowed to drop to give best efficiency -output over input .
2 I f the output arm of the seesaw is 3 times as long as the pendulum side , What value of coumterweight , expressed as a percentage of the pendulum weight gives best efficiency .
3 Given the ideal value of counterweight ,in each case , what is the ratio of seesaw arm lengths that gives best results .
These are just 3 questions off the top of my head , and I will think of others , for example , what is the advantage , if any of having a pendulum start position ABOVE horizontal , for instance , an almost inverted position .
    Let us know if you think simulation can help with any of these questions .

[F_Brown]

I'm modeling things a little differently than Milkovic's typical bicycle setup.  Here a couple of videos by some one else to give you the idea.  It's funny he fails to mention Milkovic and any of his videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9RtZfsuXg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNtEtBXYn0Q

In the second on he has the masses set up to be a frictional resistance.  The more like what I'm doing.

At first I calculated the energy required to push a mass back and forth in freespace, and the result was quite high.  Then I realized that figure was the energy recirculating in the oscillator system, like the large amount of energy that recirculates in a tank circuit, rather than the output energy.

To get the output energy, a resistance of some sort must be used.  In my models I am using a linear damper instead of the friction mass in the mentioned videos, and then calculate the energy dissipated in the damper.

I had to use a rotating mass like in these videos because I'm having trouble figuring out how to add input energy to a pendulum in the simulation software.

I give some thought to what I can do about your questions.

[fishman]

Sounds great, although too vague (or complicated) for me to understand.
Could you please explain when and why pushing with gravity is advantageous, and in which frame? Time, Kinetic Energy, height, etc?
Formulae for pendulums, KE and CF are quite straightforward. If you see a gain, please offer the math?

If that were to be true, the 2SO is needlessly complicated. We could extract the excess on the left side of a simple pendulum, and use only part of it to input on the right, contact gain. I've seen other inventions on that premise, but never seen measured gains.

I don't agree that the TSO would be needlessly complicated , but if pushing with gravity is advantageous is true, i do agree it does lend credit to 2 other simpler more compact devices that i can think of. I do not have any math to supports that as you know my math skills are limited. I'm a build it, and test it guy, not a academic.  I will try to make a case for pushing with gravity is advantageous being true. But it will only make sense once you accept that the TSO is over 12 times OU, so i'll try to make that case first.

1. In the past you agreed and understood that the TSO's lever will rise and fall with or without a counter weight on it, as long as the lever was heavier on the CW side AND the bob was swung high enough right?

2. I think you also understood and agreed that in this video Raymond was clearly pushed his TSO with a force at least 10 times less than the movement of the counter weight, Right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8 (Raymond was Guss-tamating 20:1 but we will be conservative)

3. Do you still agree that IF the Counter Weight could free fall COMPLETLY INDEPENDENTLY of the TSO,  that this would be OU of over 10xs?

Your arguement as i understood it, was you don't know or think that the weight is free falling and that the pendulum is letting the CW down slower than a true free fall. And by it not free falling it is just a elaborate See-saw.

If we are in agreement so far all we have to do is to insure a 100% free fall of the Counter weight, to prove OU.           
So what If we catch the CW at it highest point, hold it there until the lever gets to bottom, then drop the CW that would be a free fall and there would be no debate weather work was being done.

There is a device used by mountain climbers i don't remember it's name, but it is used to connect ropes, 1 rope on one side, and another rope on the other. It has a release that requires just light pull (maybe 2 lbs of pull for 1/2" but could be less) and the ropes release, and what ever is on the other end free falls. I am sure you see how this device could be used with a TSO to insure the CW is 100% free fall.  I have used this release device with 400 lbs on one end and it releases with minimal force.                                 
I hope this makes some sense.  I'm not very good with English ether.
                       
Roland

[neptune]

Hi Guys . @ Fishman . I think your last post was mainly addressed to Cloxxki . I hope you dont mind if I add my comments .First the device ised by mountain climbers . I dont know what climbers call it , but an identical device is used on sailing ships . Sailors call it a JAM CLEAT .Whilst this would do the job , my choice would be a linear ratchet , as used on a car hand brake .Personally I agree with your 3 conditions , except I have reservations about number 2 . I respect and trust Raymond Head . However it is possible that he is misleading himself here .Measuring hand push is not easy . We have to measure both pressure , and duration .We could roughly measure pressure using a kitchen scales to push with , and fitting it with a sort of moving marker to show the maximum position of the pointer . That would at least show the max push . If we arranged for an electrical contact to close each time the kitchen scales touched the pendulum , we could operate a buzzer or lamp , and work out the duration by video analyisis.At this stage , I think the 2SO is OU , but only with a factor of 3 rather than twelve . What Raymond shows is enough to convince me  of this .As earlier stated , I suggest the following way to allow independent falling of the counterweight .Mount said weight on a light weight arm the arm runs above the output arm of the main seesaw , and has its own pivot mounted on the seesaw just above the main beam pivot .So it is like a horizontal pendulum laying on half the seesaw .When it rises , it catches on a ratchet which holds it at its highest point . OK , I am going to play with my 2SO . Regards ken .