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

[Charlie_V]

It is overunity and it isn't.  That's what I'm trying to say.  Its all in how you define your reference point.  If, for example, you include the initial energy to raise the pendulum up then include the energy it takes to keep the pendulum swinging, the system is not overunity at all (maybe 50% or worse - depending on your setup).  However, if you ignore the initial input and measure the amount of energy it takes to keep the pendulum swinging verses the output.  Suddenly the system appears overunity (or atleast very close - again depending on your setup). 

It is almost like the initial input is "non-radiating" energy and stays within the system and is re-used (if that is a good way to describe it).  The "radiating" part is what is consumed by friction and the dropping pivot point. 

[Nabo00o]

@Charlie_V, I would be most interested to hear how you imagine that the enhanced 2-stage pendulum would be constructed. In my mind it seem totally impossible to make work at the output of this device if it is not moving its pivot (the pendulum pivot). And as we know, moving its pivot will cause it to loose some of its stored energy, this is the only real loss of this machine, friction is generally only a minor nuisance.

But, still I can dimly see some way to remove even this loss, I get the feeling by relating this to some other machines and techniques that can do this. By using two actions, one which makes work and the other negative work, meaning that the pendulum for instance both gives and receives energy, a secondary effect ( in this case the movement of the hinge) would also happen at the same time. But using or loading this effect would only slow or accelerate the device, it would not directly drain it.

Just for the record, this type of mechanism already exists, and it has been greatly explained by a Russian scientist, Alexander Frolov.
http://alexfrolov.narod.ru/work.htm
Maybe totally unrelated, but then again, maybe totally 'related' if we want to nullify the draining effect. But, it is not 100% necessary to do if you want more out than you put in. This machine already does that.

Julian

[Charlie_V]

@Charlie_V, I would be most interested to hear how you imagine that the enhanced 2-stage pendulum would be constructed. In my mind it seem totally impossible to make work at the output of this device if it is not moving its pivot (the pendulum pivot). And as we know, moving its pivot will cause it to loose some of its stored energy, this is the only real loss of this machine, friction is generally only a minor nuisance.

I'm still working on it.

[exnihiloest]

...And as we know, moving its pivot will cause it to loose some of its stored energy, this is the only real loss of this machine, friction is generally only a minor nuisance.
...

It is not "real loss". It is the only way that this machine can work. Without a moving pivot, the lever could not take the energy of the pendulum to provide it to the load.

[Nabo00o]

What I meant by real loss is that it is the only one that counts, the others are both minimal and are not something which a certain design is forced to have, but loss of potential energy will always happen when we move the pivot, as you explained quite well earlier.

So not moving the pivot at all isn't really an option. What I had in my mind would be something dual, which both used the up time of the pendulum (or spring, as they work as well) and the down time of a second pendulum/spring. If they could somehow work together at the same time, and make up for each others losses, as it is only distance and not force*distance (real work) which is draining their energy, then they could work like some of the systems which A. Frolov described in the paper I linked. There you can see both a transformer and a magnet motor, the first which needs no power but only a signal, and the other which has no drag what-so-ever. The key to both is that we use two continuously interchanging actions to create a third action. The third one will not directly act on the source as a load, but will only be one of its parameters in constant change.

Hmm, this does seem pretty easy to unite with T. Beardens talk of engineering the causes instead of the effects.

To me the original principle of the 2-stage oscillator is still enough to power all that we need, but there are many ways to use it. We shouldn't limit ourselves to only the pendulum/spring on a hinge model. There numerous other designs which can be based on the same principle, and many of which are much more powerful and at the same time simpler.

Some time ago I tried to make a 3d model of a full-scale, completely self-powered Milkovic pendulum.
To make it completely self-sustained it would need many parts and gears in order to send its output back to its input, and in addition to this complexity its efficiency would probably be very low too.

Then, one day while watching the energetic forum a guy named Ted Evert made a very interesting sketch of a machine that centrifugally rotated water and then used the increased pressure to further aid in its total rotation. He hasn't made it yet, but it is a very intriguing idea, and has to me a very clear relevance to the 2-stage oscillator.

You input rotation (pushing the pendulum, or pushing the cylindrical water tank).
It outputs linear acceleration (centrifugal pull from the pendulum, or centrifugal jet from the tank).
Here's there difference; no complex machinery is needed in the water jet scenario, you only need to point it in the right direction and thats that. Then you will have yourself a full-scale completely self-driven 2-stage oscillator.

As of yet this seems to be one of the best ways to do it.
Other potentially even more powerful ways to use this effect can be acoustic resonators. Since the frequency of oscillation is higher, more power in comparison to its weight should be possible, but I haven't yet found way to handle the feedback.

Julian