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

[Cloxxki]

OK guys , just come from the workshop . I am now convinced that the lever CAN feed energy back to the pendulum given the right phasing . It is very difficult to get the pendulum to swing from a standing start . However if you start it swinging in about a 30 degree arc ,You can increase its swing by manipulating the beam by hand . Move the beam so the the pivot of the pendulum is at its lowest when pendulum is at bottom dead center , and slightly higher [0.5 cms in my case ] each time the pendulum is at its highest point . Try it . This may be significant , as this is exactly the phasing of a working 2SO .
       At Cloxxki . I have not yet 100% grasped your last post yet . However some tests I did today are connected with what I think you are saying . On my model , the up and down movement of the beam is limited by 2 adjustable stops . With no counterweight , the beam was in the UP position .To make it sit in the down position I have added 200 grams to the output end , which MUST NOT  be counted as part of the CW . The CW is limited by the stops to a vertical lift of 1.5 cms . The pendulum loses about 0.5 cm height in one swing . So input was 0.5 Kg cms [pend weighs 1 kg] .output is 350 grams x 1.5  cm = 0.425 Kg cms .or about 85 % efficient .Exact measurement is hard with poor eyesight , but that is my estimate . What I am saying is that to be fair , the beam must fall down WITHOUT the CW . Regards Ken .

Thanks for testing.
With the crossbar level and the pendulum in rest, it's indeed hard to get it swinging. A non-level crossbar would surely get it going eventually, due to increased lateral movement of the pendulum pivot.

The way I currently see it (it's not gospel or fact by any means), the CW's main job is keep the crossbar down. The pendulum side with otherwise come down, crossbar up, and you've found.
Just by existing, the pendulum pulls on the CW via the central pivot and stiff bar, reducing the CW's load on its resting platform.
Indeed the 2nd stage side is perfectly timed to offer the pendulum feedback.

Another simple test would be with a CW that hammers its support. Make two clay balls, same size and shape. Get one impact of the CW in oscillation to squash it. A little cord gets it in place and away in time for the next strike.
Then do the same with a CW from the same high, in freefall. Is there is difference?
With a small device, the hand can be the guinea pig. I can tell the result. The oscillation's hammering action is greatly reduced, first from the weight of the pendulum itself, and possibly more from its CF pull and/or velocity change during the CW's downward movement.

[neptune]

As I probably said before , it is alleged that we can put a man on the moon , but after more than a decade , no one has really got to the bottom of the 2SO . I liked the Gorilla story , but one could conclude from that that you believe the 2SO is OU , and I do not believe that you do . I think that OU is possible in the 2SO , but so far only R. Head has come close to proving it . Perhaps there is a critical size of machine needed to show OU . I have convinced myself that efficiency of around 90% is possible . But even 99.99999999999& is not OU .
        The big question for me , is where to go from here .As previously stated I have constraints of space money and health . I keep thinking about off balance wheels or pendulums swinging through 350 degrees . These are similar but not quite the same . In both cases the centrifugal component is double that of a pendulum with a 180 degree arc . The question is , at what cost . If I can find a scrap bike for parts , I may give it a go . The other problem I have , is having only one working eye , I no longer dare to use my arc welder .I will find a way . Later, Ken .

[Cloxxki]

I thought using monkeys as inventors of OU would be enough to make clear that I am ridiculing the OU claim of OU. The little monkey is after all really tired, else he'd kept pestering his dad until he'd come off the see-saw and chase him down.
With Dad's side being supported by packed dirt, he won't feel his kid playing on the other side until there is a momentary overbalance there. Most seesaws have a car tire to dampen the impact. This offers some spring action, and you do feel load of the other side as you're being lifted tire-assisted for the first couple of inches.
Even if Dad's side is down to 1kg of load to the ground from 200kg without kid, the big Gorilla is not to know. The ground knows, but doesn't care.
The kid's intial leap to reach the seat does a signifant part of the work towards reaching balance. But he can swing all he wants, he can only get Dad to be lifted for a limited height, a short time. And he need to keep swinging, because Dad going back down isn't translated 100% in kid swinging back up again. This is why swinging is more tiresome than just hanging in a tree, enjoying the freedom. Kid can do that for minutes. Een swinging on a stiff branch is easier, no output, no limited feedback.

A 2SO where the CW rests fully on the ground, I think, might be one that has the pendulum come up 90º both sides. CW reaches 100% of load on ground for 2 infinitely short moments, each highest pendulum swing point. All the rest of the time, the pendulum has a force on the crossbar, which relieves the CW. In a 180º swing, it goes from doing nothing initially, slowly building up, and then after 45º start to ramp up the strain. After dead bottom, the other way around, quick diminishment, and in the last 45º there's hardly any support for the CW to speak off. On average, the pendulum does the same hanging still as swinging. I've seen experiments aimed at contesting that, but not convincingly.

[fishman]

I built a TSO a while back i only wanted some clarity about the TSO. The problem was i built it my way.
I came to a concluesion based on both the standard Milkovic TSO and my crude version. anyway it does muddy up the clarity thing. It did not seem have any feedback push from the CW to the pendulum.

I know this wont help but i think it is worth sharing anyway. FWIW, that TSO is a bit different with the standard (Milkovic) TSO.

It has no lever/crossbar on it. It is simply a pendulum with a bob, WITH a Sliding Weight on the swing-arm.
The Sliding Weight was connected via pulleys to a counter weight. The weight slide up and down the swingarm and it would do so even without the CW attatched if you swung it past 95 degrees.
It did work as expected, and performance would change with different amounts of bob weight. While i did not build it with bearings because i was only looking at the concept and not performance.

From what we have discussed here i think it may warrant re-visiting that design built the right way. 

[norman6538]

I have worked out the basic physics of the Milkovic two stage oscillator as below.

the two stage components involved in its operation

x. leverage advantage of small pendulum weight to lift the heavy weight
x. lifted/stored work of the heavy weight
x. since the pendulum swings less and less each time
ie. it does not swing as high as its dropped point.
extra lift is required to get it back to the starting point
x. use the lifted/stored work to raise the pendulum high enough to get
back to its starting point



proposed test
1. lift pendulum to a know stopping point and let it swing and get
caught/latched at its furtherest swing by a oneway stopper/limiter.
and mark that point.
2. Then find out how much more additional lift is required to get the
pendulum back where it started.
3. Then catch the lifted weight in its up position with a stopper/limiter
and see if the stored weight can lift the pendulum up to the required
  point measured in 2 above to get it back to where it started.

Then If the force in 3 is adequate then it will self run if the switching forces are not too high.

Norman