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

[edelind]

G'day Broli and all,

This has been done many times. Brian Berrett and Ron Pugh have used similar arrangements. This is all documented. All have walked away from it since there is NO energy gain in the device!

Hans von Lieven

Thank you for the links. They are very instructive. Anyway, I don't see anywhere where it's said that there is no energy gain. In fact everywhere is noticed more energy at output than at input. Brian Berret looks like he abandoned this design not because of the efficiency, but because of the extremely difficult tuning that is required (he also has a video where he shows the random move of the lever with no weight).  At the time of making his project open source he only was able to run the device for 15 seconds.

[edelind]

Regarding the complexity of oscillations, I think a pendulum with a lever is somehow similar with a double pendulum, at least as complexity.

Watch a demonstration here (who dares to tune that?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whvl6CikDxA

And a simulation here:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/doublependulum.html

In fact, with the attached spring, the complexity becomes even wilder, maybe similar with this:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/springpendulum.html

[stevensuf]

I wonder why some people find this example so difficult to get into their heads.

Imagine a see saw saw one side was 10m and the other 2m, one side had 10kg on it then other 2kg,
(ie the 2m end has 10kg and the 10m end 2 kg)
it would sit in balance, say i added 1kg to either side it would fall and the other rise , if i removed the
kilo it would eventually return to balance.

OK so say on the side with 2m i put a 1 kg weight and a 9kilo pendulum.
With no motion it is all balanced, so say i raise the pendulum by 90 degrees the system is no unblanaced
and will fall towards the 10m end.

Once the pendulum is released it simply falls,  the lever will begin to raise, when the pendulum reaches mid
point ie vertical it will have an effective force akin to its original weight, ie say 9kg x 10ms for gravity say 90n (rounding
i do know g=9.81 n) which would make the system balanced again, but you also have the force of its velocity at this
point acting directly downwards, now say it was moving at 2 m/s it now has a force of 118n ie effectively making it act
like a weight which is 20% heavier upsetting the balance and raising the beam higher than it would if it were stationary.
the pendulum then reaches the other 90 degree apex repeating the effective weightless ie no force acting on the lever
part of the cycle and it falls again.

It is extremely simple, the reason for the long beam is so as not to upset the pendulum cycle by its motion, the only
extra energy put in to maintaining the pendulum is to overcome natural forces - wind , frictions etc

No energy  is lost in the pendulum swing ie put into the lever, the lever simply moves due to decreases/increases of force
on the lever by the pendulum changing position. ie the effective weight on the pendulum side changes during its swing.

Ie at 90 degrees we have an effective weight reduction of -9kg at vertical bottom and increase of +2kg

remember people weight is an illusion there is only mass and the force acting on it that give us this number! 10kg on earth weighs 6kg on mars or 3kg on the moon!

A simple test ie swing the pendulum with the lever locked time how long it takes to stop, unlock the lever change the pendulum length to adjust to the lever motion , swing it again and time how long it takes to stop, if no difference (others have reported this) then certainly nothing goes from the pendulum to the lever.

If only people would question the nonsense taught at school, if you ignore the teaching that says you cant get work out of gravity and look at it logically and reasonably then it is all extremely simple.

[i_ron]

snip
Once the pendulum is released it simply falls,  the lever will begin to raise, when the pendulum reaches mid point ie vertical it will have an effective force akin to its original weight, the only
extra energy put in to maintaining the pendulum is to overcome natural forces - wind , frictions etc

No energy  is lost in the pendulum swing ie put into the lever, the lever simply moves due to decreases/increases of force on the lever by the pendulum changing position. ie the effective weight on the pendulum side changes during its swing.
snip
Ie at 90 degrees we have an effective weight reduction of -9kg at vertical bottom and increase of +2kg

snip

A simple test ie swing the pendulum with the lever locked time how long it takes to stop, unlock the lever change the pendulum length to adjust to the lever motion , swing it again and time how long it takes to stop, if no difference (others have reported this) then certainly nothing goes from the pendulum to the lever.

snip

True up to a certain point but several ambiguities have crept in.

"the lever will begin to raise" (sic) Which side of the lever? You mean the lever on the opposite
side to the pendulum will rise, I assume.

"no energy is lost..." is simply not true. The rise and fall of the pendulum pivot point, at the end of
the lever, directly disturbs the swing of the pendulum. You are in effect dropping the pendulum as
it approaches the bottom of it's swing. This is an energy loss. A further loss occurs as the pendulum
swings up to it's apogee, there the pivot point rises as the weight lessens.This perturbation of the
pendulum is exactly opposite to the natural motion needed to maintain the swing, as shown in the
Botafumeiro scene, where the monks pull down on the rope... raising the incense burner, at the
bottom of it's swing.I am not advocating this labor intensive approach... just using it as an example.
Try it and you will see.

Ron

[greendoor]

A simple way of looking at where the energy goes is this:

If your Milkovic beam is stalled - the pendulum just oscillates like an ordinary pendulum.  This proves nothing.

If the beam moves - doing work - then consider the degrees of angular momentum that are "lost" - they are the exact same number of degrees that the beam moves.  The energy that keeps a pendulum going is the pull of gravity on the fall down.  As the beam moves X number of degrees down, the pendulum is robbed of exactly X number of degrees of gravity assist. 

The reason we are fooled by Milkovic is because a Lever is a cool torque amplifier - at the expense of distance.  And a pendulum is a cool energy storage device.  Coupled together - we can fool ourselves by putting in a small force - applied over a greater distance, and over a greater period of time - to achieve a great thumping impulse for a very short period of time, over a very short distance ...