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

[tagor]

@i_ron: simply put your output hammer in the bucket of water and you will get water (fluid resistance) as the load

yes if he pump water = it is real work

[Nabo00o]

yes if he pump water = it is real work

It is real work non the less, the fluid will make friction which the machine must work against.
It is just not useful work but it will prove the point.

[Merg]

It is real work non the less, the fluid will make friction which the machine must work against.
It is just not useful work but it will prove the point.

what about hammering? he is lifting up the weight + doing the work by hammering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8

[Nabo00o]

what about hammering? he is lifting up the weight + doing the work by hammering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8

Only if the target absorbs some or all of the kinetic energy in the hammer, if it is a spring type mechanism most of the energy would be reflected and thus the energy used to lift the hammer would not be a true measurement for power input. Just to be clear, smashing a hammer on stiff a object would cause much of the stored kinetic energy to be transfered, even if the hammer is mounted on a shaft with an equal weight on the other side, so it is far from an ideal spring and thus usable as a load.

[sm0ky2]

I like much of what you say, but I cannot believe you are buying into the inertial propulsion cart.  Can't you see that Milkovic is simply using friction to retard the gentler reaction force?  The forward thrust is quick, while the reverse is slow, hence the forward motion.

In space, with no friction, such a method would be impossible, so your proposed method for the astronaut to propel himself by moving weights back and forth has no chance of working.

there is still friction in space. just not much around the craft being moved. the moving parts of the device will still incur friction between the metals.
the real problem with that type of propulsion in space is you have no inertial reference, it would be like triyng to move the space shuttle, by having the astronauts push on an inner wall of the craft.
the other is the lack of gravity which makes the pendulum operate....

According to pendulum physics, the force at angle=0 from verticle increases with mass and decreases with armerature length.  therefore, maximum force-gain would be achieved with a heavy weight on a short arm.
the other half of the force equation is the leverage-factor of the second fulcrum. ( big lever in top)
The key thing to note here is that this [max] force is short lived, with very little momentum. Great for pumping water or hammering something into oblivion - but not so great for things like steady, continious motion, or generating electricity.

For more momentum (which translates into torque), a heavier weight on a longer armerature might be desirable. This provides for a longer "stroke time", and thus more monentum from the weight is translated in the verticle direction. what im calling the stroke time here is the tiny pause at bottom-dead center, when the horizontal force switches direction, during which the verticle force maxes out and actuates the upper lever. This might be better for operating a generator or driving a  wind-up pendulum-train.


p.s. - if you guys want known physics documentation on this set-up, look at the specs for Milkovich's water pumps. it should have everything there you need to know. i.e. weight of pendulum, lift distance,  how much water it pumps from varying well depths. ect...