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

[nwman]

Questions I have that I was wondering if someone can answer? They are simple and stupid but I just want to ask.

Whats more efficient at converting mechanical energy to electrical energy? A standard generator motor or the induction field thing with a magnet passing through coiled wire?

Whats more efficient at turning electrical energy  into mechanical energy? A electric motor or say a electromagnet (push / pull)?


Tim

P.S. I am interested in this design. I'm not convinced it works yet but I'm also not convinced that is doesn't. I am looking at possibly getting a few dollars in research grant money to study alternative energy sources and I might be interested in funding a professional study of this. It seems Milkovic has patented a lot of stuff which if it works makes it hard for any money to be made off of it for anyone else. I would hate to fund the development and then have him take all the rights. However that is my second objective. I know the U.S. will not approve a patent of a PMM unless there is a working model. From what I know they don't have any patents for PMMs yet. So long story short I hope I get this money as soon as late Jan 07.

Check out this link on Generators to motor setups (video at bottom of page). This one is only a 60% efficient but with better quality motors it could be around 90%.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/genmot.html

[neptune]

Hi there, this is my first post, and I have followed this thred with interest. I am no mathematician, but I am a practical man and an engineer by trade. I feel this device MAY be overunity. Some of Milkoviks demos are to me unconvincing, because he seems not to take into account Work=force times distance. there is no obvious measurement of distance. If we are to close the loop, I think we can forget electrical feedback systems. You would be lucky to acheive more than 20 or 30 per cent efficiency overall. The problems of closing the loop, are problems of phasing.The out-put pulse of the lever occurs at the wrong time to feed back immediately to the pendulum. We nead to harvest and store this pulse, by compressing a spring , a bit like loading a popgun. the gun/spring is then triggered just as the pendulum begins its downward swing. I have designed a system on paper. Hope to build it in the new year as work allows.
                Among Milkoviks patents is a patent, with diagram, entitled " Mechanical Toy with pendulum and 3 oscillating levers".This looks to me like an attempt at a perpetual motion Machine. Why was it given this title? Was it perhaps because patents for perpeyual motion machines are not permitted? No one else seems to have noticed this. Someone asked about the relative efficiencies of electric motors versus electromagnets. I would say the electric motor would win, but doesnot lend itself to this job. I beleive purely mechanical is the way to go.

[a19grey]

Well, if this machine really achieves an overunity ratio of 1 to 12 then an electrical feedback system with only 20% efficiency would still be sufficient to prove the device was over unity because 0.2 * 12 = 2.4 > 1.  However, to save everyone some time, I would point out that the only indications that we have of this device being over-unity are a video with demonstrations in which the inventor clearly confuses work done with force exerted. Also, in the calculation for the coefficient of work input to output
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement1.JPG
he seems to have made the same error since his calculated coefficient is exactly equal to the ratio of the forces necessary to push down the two plungers.  This may just be a coincidence, but since he doesn't explain his experimental procedures one can't be sure.   In the following experimental results pages,
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/MerenjaEng.html  Milkovik makes the force/energy mistake again. 
As an example, in this experiment where  he compares the deformation of two sponge cylinders - http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement4.JPG
The deformation of objects is not linearly dependent upon the force exerted upon them.  For example, tap your finger on your table for two or three hours,  then hit it with a hammer.  The deformation of your table (unless you have a really good metal table) will clearly not be related to the net force, or even the net energy expended upon the table top, but is instead related to the energy per second (power) delivered to the table.

[gaby de wilde]

the only indications that we have of this device being over-unity are a video with demonstrations.

I still have my common sense. The inventor did everything he should have done. People ask "why didn't he close the loop", makes me giggle, it's as-if they cant tie a knot? Building a pendulum isn't exactly rocket science?? Where did your replication fail? Do you have a video of your device? I just cant applaud welcoming innovation with "puh, it's probably nothing".

After building a few pendulums I find it incredibly hard to debunk his theory. Don't think I'm not trying. You say "safe your time", but for what exactly? I cant think of anything more exiting as this. ha-ha

The deformation of objects is not linearly dependent upon the force exerted upon them.

It still makes it very easy to see the difference.

http://www.micropixel.biz/veljkomilkovic/videos/Veljko_Milkovic_(video-7)_Universal_oscillator-generator.wmv

The hand lights light up 4 times for every push. The push is short and not strong enough to light the torch. On the other hand we have 18 torches burning 4 times.

I'm convinced if he hooks up a volt meter people will find new excuses.

I think the trick is to not-believe anyone and measure it yourself. Of that I am convinced.

[neptune]

Hi there, still surprised no one commented on Milkovic Patent entitled Mechanical toy etc, see my last post. I found the torch demo fairly convincing, but not 100 per cent. Any future progress will probably be acheived by practical rather than theoretical effort. Being self employed, I have little time to spend personally, But members of our gang are working on two machines. Both machines at this stage consist just of pivoted beams and pendulums, all on ball bearings. Experiments are ongoing,  but it would seem that for the effect to be pronounced, a pendulum weight of at least 28 pounds[say 12 kilo] is preferable. The attraction of an electrical feedback system is its ease of controll using standard components, despite its low efficiency. Higher efficency is acheivable using a mechanical system, but this demans tools like a lathe, welder etc, and the skills ofa model engineer or clockmaker. There seems little info on optimum design of the basic machine, dimensions, weights etc. Assuming overunity is possible, it will take a high degree of skill and persistance to acheive it.Heres Hoping...