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

[Cloxxki]

By bringing torque in, do you mean to get a direct relationship between the pendulum and the lift of the CW?

Any work you allow torque to perform, goes at the expense of angular velocity, and thus height, and torque for the next swing.
I could be wrong or thinking too simply.

***

I took a deep breath, and took a brief look at Milcovic's website.
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html#brief_description

Couldn't find explicit dimensions, but it seems the crossbar is equal length both sides, and "M" is both used for the pendulum and the counterweight. This would mean the CW is fully weightless to its hammerplate when the pendulum is hanging still. Of, the vertical pull on the CW is equal to its mass multiple by G. Just a lamp hanging from the ceiling. Just not designed to swing, but to just hang down and going along with implied vertical oscillation of the ceiling.

Any amount of pendulum swing will then produce >0 CF going towards lifting the CW. Because balance was already reached with the swing.
The animation shows the CW reaching top when the pendulum is just about halfway its upswing. The downswing of the CW takes up the second half of the upswing, effectively pulling on the pendulum's pivot against it's mass *and* CF.

Where is the OU? Not there. You can't make a ramped rail which the pendulum will roll up to reset itself. The Ke simply isn't there is the CW would remain stuck in top position and fail to sling the pendulum back up.

Nice toy though.

[johnny874]

By bringing torque in, do you mean to get a direct relationship between the pendulum and the lift of the CW?

Any work you allow torque to perform, goes at the expense of angular velocity, and thus height, and torque for the next swing.
I could be wrong or thinking too simply.

***

I took a deep breath, and took a brief look at Milcovic's website.
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html#brief_description

Couldn't find explicit dimensions, but it seems the crossbar is equal length both sides, and "M" is both used for the pendulum and the counterweight. This would mean the CW is fully weightless to its hammerplate when the pendulum is hanging still. Of, the vertical pull on the CW is equal to its mass multiple by G. Just a lamp hanging from the ceiling. Just not designed to swing, but to just hang down and going along with implied vertical oscillation of the ceiling.

Any amount of pendulum swing will then produce >0 CF going towards lifting the CW. Because balance was already reached with the swing.
The animation shows the CW reaching top when the pendulum is just about halfway its upswing. The downswing of the CW takes up the second half of the upswing, effectively pulling on the pendulum's pivot against it's mass *and* CF.

Where is the OU? Not there. You can't make a ramped rail which the pendulum will roll up to reset itself. The Ke simply isn't there is the CW would remain stuck in top position and fail to sling the pendulum back up.

Nice toy though.

>>By bringing torque in, do you mean to get a direct relationship between the pendulum and the lift of the CW?<<
If the pendulum performs work, ie. swing, then it is losing energy. The only way to restore the potential of a pendulum is to accelerate it or have something else that can amplify potential energy. A CW doesn't really do anything, basically is dead weight. That is why it just hangs.
Almost makes me think of a trebuchet   

edited to add; a weight on a pendulum has the potential f = ma. When torque is considered, then the length of the pendulum increases the potential of the weight accordingly. It becomes more than f = ma.

edited to add; if the pendulum is 1 meter long and is at an angle of 30 degrees, it is 50cm's from the center line of the fulcrum. This is how the torque should be calculated.
Then it would be 1kg*50cm = torque   .
When the pendulum dropping lifts the counter weight, the CW moves w = md. This is the energy required by what is causing it to move, the pendulum.

[Cloxxki]

Jim, you want to extract both the torque and the CF of one pendulum within the same swing? If you do it well, it'll barely rear top bottom.
Neither FC nor torque can ever be exploited without the work done being at the full cost of the source.

[johnny874]

Jim, you want to extract both the torque and the CF of one pendulum within the same swing? If you do it well, it'll barely rear top bottom.
Neither FC nor torque can ever be exploited without the work done being at the full cost of the source.

  Cloxxki,
@ 1 meter and 30 degrees, the arc of the pendulum to bottom center is 2Rpi/12=arc
or 2 * 3.14 divided by 12 = arc     
           6.28 / 12 = .52 meters.
If the torque from the pendulum is as an example 5 degrees, it will still have 25 degrees to reach bottom center which is about .44 meters. It would still have time to accelerate.
What would need to be known is if the force torque generates is less than what is consumed.
After all, when looking for free energy, we have to hope we find a small detail that has been previously over looked.

[Cloxxki]

  Cloxxki,
@ 1 meter and 30 degrees, the arc of the pendulum to bottom center is 2Rpi/12=arc
or 2 * 3.14 divided by 12 = arc     
           6.28 / 12 = .52 meters.
If the torque from the pendulum is as an example 5 degrees, it will still have 25 degrees to reach bottom center which is about .44 meters. It would still have time to accelerate.
What would need to be known is if the force torque generates is less than what is consumed.
After all, when looking for free energy, we have to hope we find a small detail that has been previously over looked.

Too good to be true to be found in 2012. Good luck with that math. You can't get a gain by just making things more complicated. I gave up such thoughts some time ago.