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

[hansvonlieven]

Hi Hans,
As a builder of a few Milkovic oscillators I have to take issue with your contention of equilibrium. While it appears that what you put in is what you get back, this has not been my experience.
If you have a 10 lb pendulum on one side, and a 10 lb weight on the secondary for balance, without any input energy you have a system in equilibrium. If you pick the pendulum up to a point of about 45 degrees and let it go, what happens? It swings down to the bottom of it's arc and applies force, through the arm, to the 10 lb weight. Say the 10 lb weight travels 1 inch vertically. The pendulum continues in it's arc and reaches the peak of it's swing on the other side. The 10 lb weight has no force on it so it drops down to rest. On the return swing the same thing happens with the 10 lb weight.
The energy put into the system is what it took to lift the pendulum in the first place. This energy was used to raise a 10 lb weight 1 inch, twice.
Now we need to put more energy into the system to raise the weight 2 more times. This is the amount of energy required to return the pendulum to it's starting height. A gentle push is usually sufficient to accomplish this, and another gentle push to do it again and on and on.
Now, take the pendulum off it's arm and let the 10 lb weight rest on the other end. By pushing down on the lever where the pendulum was attached, raise up the 10 lb weight, 1 inch, two times.
You will immediately realize how much work that pendulum is doing every time you give it a gentle push. Even better, do it with a 500 lb weight. You will not be able to budge that weight without the pendulum attached. Swinging the pendulum once will pick up that 500 lb weight twice. If you had a scale under the weight, it would go from 0 to 500 lbs two times. That's real work.
Where does this work come from? It's not gravity. It's centrifugal force. The force that "doesn't really exist", only it does.
A mass in circular motion doesn't always listen to Mr. Newton.

G'day Eddy Currentz and all,

If what you are saying is right, why then has no-one managed to build a self sustaining engine in what is now 10 years or so since the idea has been around. With THAT kind of surplus energy it should be a walk in the park. Many have tried, no-one has succeeded. After all, this is a very simple device which can be built by almost anyone who has some experience with tools. The materials required can be got for free if you are strapped for cash, so this is no barrier either. Everyone that was seriously experimenting with the device has walked away from it, even Milkovic has been remarkably quiet since the first of March this year.

The first one to demonstrate perpetual motion with this device will go down in history, The physics books will have to be re-written. You would think there is enough incentive there. And yet is doesn't happen. Food for thought maybe?

Hans von Lieven

[Eddy Currentz]

G'day Eddy Currentz and all,

If what you are saying is right, why then has no-one managed to build a self sustaining engine in what is now 10 years or so since the idea has been around. With THAT kind of surplus energy it should be a walk in the park. Many have tried, no-one has succeeded. After all, this is a very simple device which can be built by almost anyone who has some experience with tools. The materials required can be got for free if you are strapped for cash, so this is no barrier either. Everyone that was seriously experimenting with the device has walked away from it, even Milkovic has been remarkably quiet since the first of March this year.

The first one to demonstrate perpetual motion with this device will go down in history, The physics books will have to be re-written. You would think there is enough incentive there. And yet is doesn't happen. Food for thought maybe?

Hans von Lieven

Hi Hans,
How do you know it hasn't been done? Veljko has a tendency to hold some cards close to his chest. 
I like your animated drawings, you have some very clever ideas. Nevertheless, without hands on experience it's very difficult to understand this mechanism.
To me, building a self runner is secondary to really understanding the physics involved. This looks like a simple machine, and physically it is. The difficult part is determining how the power is developed and how to efficiently use it.
I'm still learning a lot of new things with different configurations of this mechanism. I'm also experimenting with full rotation of unbalanced wheels. There is resonance, feedback, geometry and many other parameters that all work together in creating a desirable or undesirable output. Parasitic oscillations alone are a big problem. It's not quite as straight forward as it seems. A lot of time is spent in design and construction.
In other words, these machines are great fun. 

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Eddy,

In other words, these machines are great fun.

You are right they are. You are also right in your reasoning that there are many things yet to be discovered as far as resonance is concerned. And again you are right in saying that when it comes to resonant circuits our friend Newton is not always doing as well as expected.

Having said that it is not easy to create a self runner this way. I am not certain, as a result of considerable experimentation, that there is enough energy in the system to do so.

The energy developed on the "working side of the beam", if I may call it that, comes in 4 distinct pulses. The two upswings and the two downswings have each different characteristics. They are not identical in stroke-length and force. This makes a feedback system difficult to design. For that reason I have employed in the above animation a two way ratchet system (borrowed from George Constantinesco). This will impart the maximum available motion on the transfer gear regardless of individual stroke-lengths.

The rest is a matter of timing and weight of the hammer that energises the pendulum. I know I have been criticised for using a purely mechanical approach. To my critics I say this, any conversion of mechanical energy to electrical energy by say a generator of some sort and the reconversion of this electrical energy into mechanical energy by say an electromagnet in order to push the pendulum costs a lot of energy. You will be lucky to be able to apply 35% of the available energy to the pendulum.

The mechanical system envisaged in the animation is far more reliable and efficient, in spite of its clumsiness.

I have not built it like this, purely because my initial experiments indicated there was not enough energy in the system to guarantee its functioning.

Hans von Lieven

[Eddy Currentz]

Hey Hans,
One of the reasons that I switched to full rotation was the problem of stability with the pendulum. It's difficult to produce even and regular pushes in order to keep the pendulum in the sweet spot.
I agree with your assessment of turning the mechanical force into electrical energy. Its a very lossy process. On a larger scale with some serious engineering it might be more feasible.
Here is a machine I built that combines a Bedini wheel with a Milkovic oscillator. I called it the Milkodini. I stuck about 10 lbs of weight on the wheel to unbalance it.
The coil gets the wheel moving fairly well, enough to go through a few oscillating points during spool up.
The secondary will start to bounce wildly at certain RPMs, even with heavy springs to dampen it, unless I hold on to it. Even grabbing on to the arm and really leaning on it doesn?t completely stop it from oscillating. There is a lot of leverage when the stroke is shortened.
It only takes about 600 ma @ 12 volts to put out a considerable amount of force in the lever. And, of course, the current stays the same regardless of the loading.
After all the gearing I was only able to light a few led's with a stepper motor I stuck in there. It was quite a sight when it all got going. The problem was having way to much mechanical loss in the gearing, and I should have stuck the flywheel on the final shaft. The gearing should have been done in one step too.
It was a fun motor though. Here's a few pics.

Here is a side view.



Here is the gearing mechanism I used. I took apart an old bicycle and used the sprockets. It creates a 1-5 increase in speed (and a 5-1 reduction in torque). The flywheel weighs 20 lbs.



I used a stepper motor as a small generator to light a few led?s. There wasn?t much left by the time the generator received some rotation.



I also borrowed heavily from Mr. Constantinesco and fashioned a mechanical valve from a couple of gear wrenches. It worked well, but had more slop than I could have hoped for. A clutch bearing would work much better, but you would have to machine an arm to fit on it.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Eddy,

There are a number of ways to keep the pendulum in the "sweet spot". The old time honoured method is of course the pendulum clock escapement. The other way is to use a 555 timer and an electromagnet. Since the resonant frequency is a result of the length of the pendulum alone, and since this frequency is incredibly stable, the timer can be set to deliver a push at the optimum time. You can also set the duty cycle of the timer and therewith set the amount of force you add into the system.

If you need more information on this please ask.

Btw. Good job and a lot of imagination on your prototype. Keep it up, you have talent.

Hans von Lieven