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

[iacob alex]

                              Hi !

A slow motion movie(we live in the youtube times...) of this "inexplicable" double mechanical oscillator in gravity and inertia,can show us,as on a paper,the related display on the time line of the swingings of the pendular mass and beam mass.

It's seems to be an asymmetric type game: a situation in which are implicated two "players" of unequal power:gravity and inertia.

The asymmetric game is advanced by the pendular motion with a balancing fulcrum/pivot.

With a fixed fulcrum,the pendular swinging is simmetrical in gravity and inertia.

The free balancing fulcrum of the pendulum on the balace beam(lever as a weighting machine of the dynamics...) introduces an asymmetric  fall/rise sequence.

The difference of the inertial reaction is transffered to the beam mass:as Milkovic shows,this is an one way power mechanism...or it works as a pendular motion absorber.

The gravity asks for  symmetry:this is the basis of a lever momentum relation.

The asymmetric swinging action asks for an asymmetric inertial reaction.

More(maybe we can see on a slow motion movie),it's possible to have some unequal swingings times(fall vs. rise).

If so,we have an anisochronal pendulum(a motion "prohibited" by inertia!?),so we play time factor in an "unusual" manner?an asymmetric compression technique?

A slow movie can tell us more...

               All the Bests!  /  Alex

[i_ron]

iacob,

You lost me after the "slow video"  lol

What I am coming to think is we should be studying the "balanced beam" or teeter
totter... the pendulum is well written up and easy to understand, but there is no
information on the resonant frequency of the 'beam', no handy dandy tutorials on
"how to maximize your teeter totter output"

Because this is where the action is. I mentioned that I had tried a spring... well the
spring has a tendency to absorb the force and not give it back! So if we look at the pendulum as just an oscillator... that balances and unbalances the beam... for free,
then we would be getting closer to the truth.

We have learned that if you extract work from a pendulum then you pay the price.
Throughout history the pendulum pivot point has been of robust construction to
prevent any vertical motion. But Veljko has shown us that there is a force there
that will allow a certain amount of work to be extracted from the pendulum...with
minimum penalty. As the pendulum swings up towards weightlessness, we allow the
pivot point to rise... as the pendulum swings down, adding the acquired force of
being restrained from its gravity fall, we allow the pivot point to descend.

This perturbation of the pendulum is almost benign, we pay only a minimum penalty.
But the balance/unbalance transfered to the beam is a useful byproduct that can be
utilized.

Hope this helps...

Ron

[i_ron]

Hi All,

I see a lot of downloads of my video... so perhaps an explanation is in order.

In the beginning I didn't know where to provide the input to the pendulum. I thus
chose the grand father clock model where the input is at the end of the stroke.
This required logic to not pulse as the pendulum swung up through the trigger window
but to only fire on the way down.

This worked well for Mk 1, 2 and 3... but with doubling the weight and allowing the pivot point to rise and fall required more power. I cut another trigger window at BDC so as to have the coil pulse twice per swing and thus doubling my input to 11 watts.

But I since find that perhaps the optimum firing position is at the bottom of the swing, in the words of JDJ...

"I believe that I detect in the writing of both Mr. Pugh and Mr. Berrett a fundamental confusion between the force of the output impulse and the amount of energy it might deliver.  Energy (or work) is the product of force and distance.  In fact Mr. Pugh has demonstrated this relationship by pushing his pendulum at the bottom of its swing.  At the bottom of the swing the pendulum velocity is maximum so that for an applied pulse of fixed duration, the force is applied over a greater distance at the bottom of the swing than at the top.  This couples additional energy into the pendulum from the driving coil resulting in higher swing amplitude."

So what I am saying is please don't copy my earlier work. For in the next model I
wish to do away with the current drive electronics and instead go for the Bedini
trigger. The logic behind this is the JB trigger is directionally sensitive and will only
fire the coil(s) after TDC... regardless of the approach direction. By TDC I mean
full coverage of the magnet by the cored coil. I will use the pulse motor as seen in the
video but wind an addition coil with a trigger winding and move one magnet station
so that the coils and magnets are at 180? and pulsed simultaneously, when the pendulum is at the bottom of its stroke.

Mark three, as posted, is just a report of my progress and can be seen as a
"don't do it this way" type machine.

Ron

[stevewal2]

Hi Ron,
I have to say I'm really impressed with your mechines and engineering skills. Great ideas too. Keep up the great work. I replayed your video several times. The bendi trigger definetely sounds the way to go. 

Steve.

[i_ron]

Thanks Steve...

you are too kind. It is always nice to see interest in Veljko's ideas.

Ron