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

[tinu]

Many thanks Hans!
... and Tinu out of this thread. 

[Scorpile]

But look at these models... there are all the same...



By just adjusting the Dead Upper Center of the flywheel and reverse the rotation, i can lift the 50 Kg BLUE BOX on the right using 5.6 N force, and keep the flywheel rotating.  That's the upper left model.

On the upper right model, placing the flywheel on Dead Lower Center, and aplying the 5.6 N force to the center of the flywheel as the system should do... don't moves the weight.

On the down center model, i needed to apply 100 N of force to do what i have in the upper left model.

I am missing something?  Heres the model:  http://pabo.com.pa/joe/force2.wm2d

Heres the video 2.2 MB http://pabo.com.pa/joe/force2.avi

[Scorpile]

My model only ever intended to show what happens in the system with various arrangements where no actual work is being done and where the movement is unrestricted.

But in my model i found that if you restrict the movement, you need even less power to keep the flywheel rotating.  Like 2 N only.

[aleks]

Heres the video 2.2 MB http://pabo.com.pa/joe/force2.avi

Well, the problem when comparing these designs is that topleft design's 50 KG weight raises for a moment only whereas design with 100N force lifts the weight for some time struggling with gravity. Probably the first design is just more efficient at raising the weight since it does it quicker. Even though, I've not found any efficiency estimations of using E=mgh in practical situation, in reality time also matters. E=mgh is valid for free fall only. When raising the weight to the same height you should do it in a speed of light just to be sure you are not loosing energy, because levitation requires energy. However, it's hard to measure it using well known physics equations. One of the problems was mentioned by me in another thread: E=mv^2/2 does not make sense if you are moving using small energy bursts (this also applies to acoustical way of movement - Hans von Lieven, it's for you to consider).

One idea to consider. Let's pretend we have a falling body that we would like to levitate. How much energy we should put in? If the body falls for a long time, it gains a lot of kinetic energy and so putting it back will require much energy. On the other hand, after say 1/10000 of second it has very little kinetic energy and so it can be lifted back easily. In my very own opinion you need NO energy to make a body levitate if you can arrange some clever mechanism. One of such 'clever' mechanisms is to simply put the body on a long shaft. Levitates? Yep. Now just make it levitate without the shaft (just remember that burning fuel is close to zero efficiency even if it works when launching rockets to space). I have a deep belief that you can do it just like a baron Muenchausen did it when he was pulling himself out of the pit by his hair.

[allcanadian]

Wow 44 pages and still going strong I may as well throw my twisted opinions into the mix.
I see some odd things happening in Milkovic's machine that we should maybe consider more carefully concerning the force of gravity, centripetal/centrifugal forces and relative velocities. Imagine yourself freefalling downward at terminal velocity, we could say you are weightless and as such the force of gravity would be zero because you are no longer "accelerating", the force of gravity is an accelerating force. When standing still on earth the force of gravity is maximum as there is no acceleration involved, so the force of gravity is dependent on relative velocity in the vertical plane of motion. In the picture below, on the lower right is a half circle representing the motion of a pendulum, in mid-sectors 1 and 3 we could say the pendulum will undergo maximum accelerations both negative and positive in the vertical plane and in sector 2 minimum accelerations in the vertical plane thus gravity must act with maximum force at points 1, 2 and 3 as represented by "G" (red line) in the graph, the letter "C" represents centripetal force pulling downward/outward on point (B) of the balanced lever. We can see in the graph that maximum forces (G-C)peak at point 2 moving the lever end down at B down.What is odd is that in the upper diagram in sectors 4 and 5 the lever end "B" is rising increasing the potential of the pendulum system this potential released near the bottom of the pendulum swing near point 2. The increased potential must be paid for but from which force?, the centripital forces act in a predictable manner through the arc but the force of gravity would seem to peak just as this potential is paid for at point 2. If we could imagine holding lever end "B" and pulling upward where sectors 1-2 and 2-3 meet we can visualize that the pendulum would stay in motion, but which force provides this timed pull upward? It would seem only the mass "A" can and the force would be the force of gravity on a mass with little vertical velocity but great mass and inertia. The mass "A" must be periodically reset to the top position to lift "B" so we come back to the same question again, is it force "G" or force "C" that lifts lever end "A" through the motion of the pendulum pulling on "B"?. Judging from the quite erratic motion of the mass "A" in the video and the predictable centripital force graph line I would guess the de-acceleration of the pendulum mass on the vertical plane leading to an increase in gravitational forces has some role to play here.
This simple setup is very misleading, there are some very complex timing and force issues involved that I can't quite put my finger on yet.
Best of luck