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

[tinu]

Yes, I?m a bit skeptic too. After many years of device testing, it is not normal, no matter how limited funds are, for Milkovic not being able to conduct better measurements and, even worst, to mix forces, power and energy.

But as skeptic as I am, I still believe that there is something worth to be investigated there. After all, there are at least two experiments partially documented, besides the dynamo-lights: one is that in comparison with other oscillators and the other one ? even more relevant from energetic point of view ? is with pistons. Look again please at http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement1.JPG
and table given in http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement3.jpg
Now, for the first one, it is not clear that the initial potential energy was taken into account neither the fact that drag effects on pistons are more significant at low forces. But for the second one, why is it oscillating the system for 78 cycles as compared with 37 and 21?!!!
Of course, it is still possible that some other hidden factors are behind the above values, but still the ratio is more than two!
What about these two experiments? Can you dismiss them too at ease?

So, Dact and Cyberdust, let me say these as a physicist, hopefully an open-minded one: According to the existing laws, our understanding of universe is very limited. The understanding based on average formal education is even more limited. For instance, most of us were told that since the gravitational field is conservative, no energy can be extracted out of it using a closed mechanical setup. This is not always correct. At a deeper analysis, even classical mechanics predicts that a gyroscope is able to extract energy from the rotational movement of Earth. (Don?t get too excited ? the device is very impractical, almost impossible to be built). But the functional equivalent of this ?free gravitational generator? is a toy you can have and play with ? Power Ball. (Sorry ? I have no intention to advertise).
My 2 cents in return: It would be so easy to say that nothing can be done but if we consider that no one is able to define the mechanism of gravity as of today, would it be really wise?

No offense intended, just thoughts for hungry minds.
And welcome aboard!

Tinu
?In the absence of light, dark prevails?

[Dact]

To both Cyberdust and Tinu:

Thank you both for your replies. My short post was aimed at reinvigorating this debate, and was based only on initial observation and an instant analysis and theory, without any benefit of formal training in any persuasion other than classical electrical theory. That is why I enjoy this site, and others like it, so much, as it makes me feel like Isaac Newton, living in a world of the unknown, with apples falling all around. Unlike Newton, however, I have the benefit of knowledge and answers from individuals such as you, learned thinkers who are willing to share their knowledge and ideas through forums like these, which I am sure will quickly lead to the answer we are all looking for. My job is only to ask questions, of which I have many.

Here's one:

What IS the weight of the mass at the end of the pendulum at the end of it's swing?

Dact

[cyberdust]

The weights are always the same, and that?s the clue to the mystery. If one looks carefully, the right side is shifted when the left side with the pendulum weight is in its highest position. That means, if the pendulum is stretched, the left side times distance is ?heavier? than the right one, and so it is shifting the right side, whereas when the pendulum is moved to its right highest position, the right side wins the game with the rods. You have always to apply exactly the force needed to shift the pendulum to its highest position. That is exactly the amount of energy needed to shift the right side. It would be quite easier if professor Linkovic used some banal instruments like scales to write down all the forces that are applied to the rods, if he measured distances etc and gives us full details of his calculations and his results, instead of claiming such nonsense. Playing with flashlights do not satisfy our curiosity.

[i_ron]

The weights are always the same, and that?s the clue to the mystery. 

Let me help you with your understanding.

Hold a 10 Kg pendulum by its pivot point (axle)
Have your assistant lift the pendulum to the three or nine o'clock position.

Your are right, the pendulum will still weigh 10 Kg's... but how much weight will you
feel?  next to NONE, right.

Have your assistant drop the pendulum... when it reaches the bottom how much will
it weigh? still 10 Kg's?  What I am saying is, you might not even be able to stop it
because it could easily double it's stationary weight.

But to be practical a 180? swing requires a lot of energy. 120? is reasonable and
the weight change at the pendulum pivot point approximates the "standing" weight
of the pendulum, ie: 10 Kg's in our example.

So on each upward swing, left and right, of the pendulum, the pivot point on the secondary arm experiences a minus 5 Kg's of force...and on the bottom of the swing, plus 5Kg's of force, in our example. The force needed to maintain the pendulum's swing is relatively the same in any case. But it is the weight change on the pivot
point, that is mounted on the secondary arm, that allows the secondary arm to do work.

Ron

[Dact]

  Thanks for the explanations! My initial, brief observation of the video only focused on the pivot point, and my conclusion that there was no "apparent" downward force on that spot at the end of either swing, which I admit, I visualized at the horizontal.

One more question. Does the initial energy input derive from the potential energy in the ball before dropping it, the kinetic energy exerted to lift it, or a combination?

Dact