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

[tinu]

Hi all,

1. Just to let you know, ChileanOne and gaby de wilde, that I would be interested in the above mentioned Lagrangean analysis, if available in the near future. It is very hard for me to believe that energy can be taken out of a gravitational field using a ?Milkovic device? because I can not see from where this energy can be taken. But let?s say for now that the device is promising and, of course, I?m just a reluctant person. Am I? 

2. Gyula, the reference you gave (http://www.keelytech.com/news.html) is very interesting, especially in the first part but then it contains at least two major flaws: first ? ?There is no way any radio receiver can put a load onto a radio transmitter? YES, THERE IS. In fact, a radio receiver (or simply an antenna) IS drawing more power from the emitter. Of course, the coupling quickly fades out with the distance but the effect is still there. Second (I can not cite because it extends over several paragraphs) ?human ear is very sensitive; it takes a pressure of only 10E-5 N/m2 to hear a sound, so that?s why hearing a radio broadcast with a passive receiver is possible; it requires tiny amounts of energy. That?s being said, I would be circumspect in taking the article as reference?

3. The whole problem of Milkovic is reducible imho to a basic question. It is known (from experience as well as from Newtonian physics) that a pendulum is in principle weightless at its upper point and it weights more that its own rest mass when crossing the vertical, due to centrifugal force. This is just basics, don?t shot yet. Now, if you give me a truly variable mass, I can easily build an OU machine, by simply lifting the said mass (and thus investing energy) when it is easy and then by letting it going down and perform work (and recovering energy) when it is heavier! If the mass would follow a variation like m=m0*sin(2*pi*f*t), like in a stationary pendulum, the OU device would work. But?

4. If you followed the above, Milkovic is about a device that has a ?variable mass? on one side (on left side, in all of his practical devices but water pump). The problem with that variable mass is that it is no longer zero once you try to lift it. That?s due to inertia, of course. Then, the second problem is that it will no longer weight more than its rest mass once you let it drop free. I don?t know if most can follow me but to be short, the mass is not truly variable and in any case it does not follow a sinusoidal function. So, the analysis may be relevant in makings things clear for us? And that?s why I started with 1 above. 

Yours truly,
Tinu
?In the absence of light, dark prevails?

[gyulasun]

2. Gyula, the reference you gave (http://www.keelytech.com/news.html) is very interesting, especially in the first part but then it contains at least two major flaws: first ? ?There is no way any radio receiver can put a load onto a radio transmitter? YES, THERE IS. In fact, a radio receiver (or simply an antenna) IS drawing more power from the emitter. Of course, the coupling quickly fades out with the distance but the effect is still there. Second (I can not cite because it extends over several paragraphs) ?human ear is very sensitive; it takes a pressure of only 10E-5 N/m2 to hear a sound, so that?s why hearing a radio broadcast with a passive receiver is possible; it requires tiny amounts of energy. That?s being said, I would be circumspect in taking the article as reference?

Hi Tinu,

Thanks for your comments.  I mentioned the link because its owner seems to deal with Milkovic's device in a more scientific approach than most of other members here or elsewhere. I mean he tries to give reasons why he thinks the explanations / video demos from even Milkovic or from others are mainly based on show-like ones and I look forward to his approach with having two counter-rotating weights around a common axis. He may also fail to come out with proving the setup as overunity though, I do not say it is a 100% solution, only experiments can give answers. 

I think Ron's explanation/suggestion is ok to circumvent Hans objection but there is more to it.

I respectfully disagree with your mentioning the two 'flaws', I do not think they are flaws.  Why?  Because I think a transmitting antenna radiates its input power into the space it is placed in, it dissipates almost all of its input energy into the space wave impedance (around 377 Ohms) and regardless of the number of receiving (resonant or non-resonant) antennas placed in the same space / room around it, it radiates the power fed to it non-reciprocally: I do not think you could measure any loading effect on the transmitter by increasing the number of receiving antennas up to practical limits.  Of course when placing the rec antennas I assume considering NO nearfield but far field propagation of the waves so that unwanted coupling due to physical closeness of tr/rec antennas is not an issue.

I imagine all this as a current source works: whatever load you place on it the current does not change...  well, in practice this is within component limits of course.

On your second issue with the tiny amount of needed energy: it is true but above I meant on practical limits of the number of antennas can go up to thousands or millions, depending on the wavelength and still you will hear info with the same strength... there will be no load on the transmitter...   

I do not state that you can surely achieve overunity with using a great number of antennas for collecting more received power from a given transmitted power, because I do not know it for sure yet,  I say only that there is no loading effect on the transmitter when doing so.  A good (but rare) example on the lack of feedback between action-reaction.

Regards
Gyula

[tinu]

Gyula,

Please do not take it personally but I really don?t get it. The strength of the receiving radio signal is in any case not the same whether a single or one million antennas. That?s why radio signals can be shielded by a metallic/conductive net for instance, which is the exact equivalent of ?billion of antennas?. Behind the shielding you will not hear a thing or in the best case ? if you want me to be very rigorous- if you hear something it will be crystal clear that any signal you may detect there is severely attenuated. Why? ?

Ok, now you will probably tell that we are taking about antennas placed on the surface of the same sphere and not about antennas placed one behind the other. Ok but it is even simpler then. Surface of the sphere is known, energy flux is known and power is thereby also limited and equal to the product of first two.

Even more important, by placing a shielding net in the proximity of a radio transmitter, the power demand of the transmitter will increase, if allowed by its own electronics and by the power source. That?s plain experiments I?ve conducted. Almost anyone can reproduce them with basic equipments. And I?ve seen no limits by increasing the distance but strictly due to the detection sensitivity of the power taken by the transmitter. If one can lower this detection sensitivity at extremely low (practically impossible) levels, it will detect that you tune your radio receiver no matter what the distance is.  It is nothing more than resonance between the transmitter and receiver(s), I agree, but for me in order to digest something that I am presented on public domain, I have to see that the author is at least familiar with the field in discussion and that he/she does not make claims that are beyond what are real and already known facts. Otherwise, white and black will quickly become gray and not everyone is able to make the difference?

As about the impedance of free space, it is constant (according to existing and accepted theories), it is variable even in vacuum according to some new ideas (i.e. www.blazelabs.com ? one of the best page I?ve seen around; I?m not affiliated to it in any way but I highly recommend everyone to have at least a quick lecture), but it is clearly variable and just in approximation taken to be constant for others media than pure vacuum, that approximation being made strictly to make our life easier. The approximation works well for air but it doesn?t work that well (actually is far from that, failing to work at all) for water ? just to mention one other media.

Point 2 of my previous message was the least important. Sorry to digress on it.
What about 3 a 4? At least they are on topic, and I was hoping that it will shed some light on Milkovich device for those less familiar with mechanics and gravitation?

Respectfully,
Tinu
?In the absence of light, dark prevails?

[Dact]

 

I'm a newcomer here, and only watched the video once, but was not impressed. I assume the lever arm was balanced with the pendulum in place. Ok, so there is equal weight on both sides of the fulcrum. When the pendulum swings and reaches it's farthest advance, it weighs NOTHING, so the other end of the bar FALLS. Nothing but gravity here!

[cyberdust]

Hello? It does not only look fake, but it is a joke. What does it mean power (symboled with F in the original diagram) becomes zero, and so it weights less than the other side and the other side gets havier and you have power out put, soory but that's physics that even kids in kindergarten know better. A pendulum gains and loses energy, not F (gravity). It sould be marked with P in all the pictures. And zero energy does not mean zero gravity. It is only exchanging potential energy with kinetic energy. ?No hammer will ever jump up and down. The right side has the equal weight as the left side. No energy gain at all. I hate to repeat myself, bbut all the video is a joke aimed to simpletons. Now that typed, I demand my 2 cents be given back to me for the honour I granted you to enlighten from all your delusions.