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

[i_ron]

OK Ron,

Here is the suggested comparison test. The diagram is self explanatory. The small motor provides the oscillations. Since the system is in balance the input energy is very small. Compare that to the load cell measurements and you will see what I mean.

Prove me wrong, I hope you do. I am not averse to eating crow if it advances our understanding of science.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

If you do the math you will see the fallacy of your setup.

Ron

[hansvonlieven]

The movement of the weight on the "business end" in my model is exactly the same as in Milkovic's setup. It does not matter how the oscillations are produced, it will give the same results. Try it.

All the energy thus generated stays in the system, there is no work being done. A pendulum will show exactly the same variations as long as there is no outside load.

Hans von Lieven

[Nabo00o]

I am talking about MEASUREMENTS, not beliefs!

Hans von Lieven

Well you wont find one! Trying to prove conservation of energy wrong is already as controversial as it can get, no serious scientist with a love for his reputation would even consider doing such an experiment, even when it really is as simple as it can get. Yes you can find lots of setups and explanations of Helmholtz resonator in books, but they will only go into the technical stuff related to acoustical sound and reproduction, they will not begin to debate whether or not the large sound out is actually greater than what the driving sound was. If someone would ask them so, they would probably *ASSUME* that yes of course the energy is conserved , because modern science say that's how it is. How could they make an assessment when they aren't even qualified to make such an experiment?

Its time to face it, much of todays knowledge is split of into several medium and small fields which some random people specializes into, and then becomes an expert in. However that expert is still most often a novice in most other fields. This is a big error in todays way of searching for the real combined truth.

And a problem which actually proves that todays theories cannot really be true is that many of them simply aren't possible to combine. In the future, when we (man) finally make the grand unified theory which can combine all experienced phenomena into one logical theory, then we KNOW that we got it right.

But be me guess, try search through some books and the Internet to find the answer, do everything you can but maybe the simplest experiment:  See if sound actually can be amplified in resonant tubes and chambers, as which I claim is the case with most instruments today.
You got an electric guitar? Well slap the strings one time first. Then place then neck against something made out of wood, a door perhaps. Now slap the strings again. Can you hear the volume increase.
Would you care to explain it?  Or are you simply denying it?

[i_ron]

The movement of the weight on the "business end" in my model is exactly the same as in Milkovic's setup. It does not matter how the oscillations are produced, it will give the same results. Try it.

Hans von Lieven

I will...but later
---------------
”All the energy thus generated stays in the system, there is no work being done”,
another negative statement. I was wondering the differences between us and that is the most obvious, I can dream.

I can visualize and build mechanical devises in my head, not always correctly but then a pencil sketch to get the dimensions and several models to bring it to fruition: but always based on the dream.

Von Braun was just such a person. He wore his dream on his sleeve. He went to incredible lengths, overcoming impossible odds to bring his dream to fruition. For he, in essence, went to the moon. He wrote articles in Popular Science to inspire other people. He was a positive person.

How sad then that you will be remembered as “Mr No”, the man who knows nothing will work: this is not true in the case of the pendulum. Work can be done by the pendulum: it has been shown many times. The problem is your basic conception is flawed and you refuse to re-examine or re-view.

The pendulum is a challenge. It has many limitations, yet were the work of Constantino or Würth to be integrated with the pendulum then this picture could change dramatically.
I am soldiering along at the boundaries of my capabilities, lacking the smarts to do this myself. But what if a man of your capabilities were to take on this challenge?

Ron

[rlortie]

Ron wrote;

t”All the energy thus generated stays in the system, there is no work being done”, another negative statement. I was wondering the differences between us and that is the most obvious, I can dream.

I am not an avid poster here, but every once in a while something catches my attention.

'Although there may not be any viable output, 'work' is being done. It may only be the displacement of mass by the lever being displaced in its up and down motion. This is considered work. question; did not Milkovic substantiate this by pumping water?
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/DefinitionWork.html

Von Braun was just such a person. He wore his dream on his sleeve. He went to incredible lengths, overcoming impossible odds to bring his dream to fruition. For he, in essence, went to the moon. He wrote articles in Popular Science to inspire other people. He was a positive person.

I had the privilege of meeting the man in 1958, I attended a seminar he gave on missile guidance systems used in that era. Somewhere around here I have a 1959 edition of 'Electronics Illustrated' where he was interviewed on the subject.

Von Braun was a man with an outgoing personality of the kind I have never met. He was my inspiration, I continued correspondence with him for a short time via his secretary regarding the use of magnets employed in a gyroscope/pendulum guidance sensor.   

Ralph