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

[a19grey]

Umm.... this is painful to watch. This isn't even close to being over unity.  The key here is to recognize the difference between force and energy.  At one point he shows how with one hand he can easily keep the pendulum going but his assistant can?t stop the machine with BOTH hands.  This is because the pendulum moves over a very large distance (the length of the arc) whereas the hammer moves over a very small distance.  Thus, the force-per-distance is different, but the energy is not. His machine performs essentially the same function of a pulley system. I hope this site can help explain this.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/blocks.html

Also,  this explains the flashlight scene.  He pushes lightly on the flashlight next to the pendulum (for a longer distance) while on the other end the hammer pushes hard (for a short distance/time) on the other flashlight.  One shouldn?t be surprised that pushing lightly for a long time doesn?t have the same effect on something as pushing hard for a short time (rest your hand against a wall for an hour, then punch it to see the difference) but this doesn?t mean more energy is going in than coming out. The first flashlight doesn?t light up enough for us to see it or it doesn?t light up at all because of the flashlight?s own inefficiency?s. This does not show that it is an over-unity device.

Also, it should be noted that the diagram showing the forces on the pendulum is wrong.  The force due to gravity does not change as the pendulum goes through its swing as indicated.  The force from gravity is constant (neglecting, of course, the fact that gravitational force decreases with the square of the distance, since the distances involved are so small as to be negligible). 

This is not an over unity device.

[Dingus Mungus]

For those who are wanting to work on this:

WM2D free download:
http://www.design-simulation.com/WM2D/download.php

something semi-enticing:



NOTICE THE PENDULUMS MATCH VELOCITY! (no lost kinetic energy)

Now download it and go test your own configurations of this idea!

First off this is just a simulation so I understand that will be the first argument you'll fall back on, but it is important to acknowlegde that energy is being extracted from the lever and it removes no kinetic energy from the pendulum. Roll that arround in your head for a moment, and I mean really think about the physical forces acting on the two masses. Now there are three things too understand about my method of replication. First the lever is balanced, second the weights on each end are balanced when in full rest, third there is an exact duplicate pendulum running independant from the device to act as a baseline guide to examine transfer of kinetic energy to the lever thus slowing the pendulum.

So then the question is why would the lateral exesion of gravity on a unbalanced lever cause a pendulum to lose any energy... If you think about it, you should come to the conclution I did which is: there is no reason for any kinetic energy to be taken from the pendulum from any force but wind resistance and gravity provided the lever and pendulum are in a similar phase. Yet excitingly enough it does not remove the fact that the lever gains its own kinetic energy. Do you see where I'm going with this? The element that gives the lever its kinetic energy does not lose any extra kinetic energy of its own... No transfer of kinetic energy...

I will say this; I can not in anyway say this device is overunity, but I believe deeply that this is an example of a first law violation. If this idea was propperly nurtured and worked on by group of dedicated and inginuitive individuals this could be proven and perhaps even matured to an overunity status, but very few people know enough about the device and its operation to "know" anything for sure. I would venture to guess that you are not one of those few.

These technologies can never be developed if nay sayers dismiss them without doing their own extensive research. Since that was your first post I can only assume this is the first time you've even read this thread (did you also read the full patent and test logs?), and that you've done no actual research of your own (physical or simulation experiments). That an uneducated opinion. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but with all due respect it is the truth of the matter. If my assumption that this was the first time you've read anything about this device is wrong I applogise but thats usually the story.

~Dingus Mungus

P.S. If you would like share evidence or an experiment that would prove my hypothysis of a first law violation false I would be quite intriged to hear more.

[Dingus Mungus]

check this out. i leave the system at equilibrium state and still the massive lever starts to pick up speed. and yes the air resistance is set to high. is it because of the horizontal track?

Did you use a duped pendulum to ensure that energy wasn't taken from the drop pendulum?

[FreeEnergy]

check this out. i leave the system at equilibrium state and still the massive lever starts to pick up speed. and yes the air resistance is set to high. is it because of the horizontal track?

Did you use a duped pendulum to ensure that energy wasn't taken from the drop pendulum?

i don't remember and i could not save my work.

peace

[a19grey]

Ok, Mungus, first, thanks for the chance to think about this. Also,  I wasn?t sure what you had meant by ?exesion? but I hate it when people complain about spelling or grammar mistakes instead of paying attention to the issue, so I?ve assumed you meant ?lateral expression of gravity.?

The motion of the lever does rob the pendulum of kinetic energy.  First, what causes the lever to lift up? Well, it?s an unbalanced lever so naturally it tends to fall with the right side (hammer-side) down and the left side (pendulum side) up. In other words, when there is no motion, there is a greater net downward force on the hammer side than on the pendulum side.   The hammer raises when the pendulum is in motion.  More specifically, it raises when the pendulum is on it?s downswing since this is when the pendulum is pulling downward the strongest (to prove this to yourself just hold out a pendulum on your arm, in my case I used my laptop charger).  So, what overcomes the net downward force on the right-side (hammer) is the increased downward force on the left side from the pendulum?s motion.  As the hammer swings up, the left side of the lever swings down which causes the entire motion of the pendulum to be shifted downward by this amount.  So, the falling of the pendulum causes the raising of the hammer, i.e. the pendulum loses gravitational potential energy and the hammer gains gravitational potential energy.  The pendulum then swings through the bottom of its swing and begins to swing upward; as it does this, the total downward force on the left side (from the pendulum) decreases, and the hammer falls. As the hammer falls it loses gravitational potential energy and the pendulum shifts upward- gaining gravitational potential energy.  The question now is, what happens as the hammer falls again.  Assuming we don?t care about doing any work, we put a perfect spring (one that does not lose energy to heat and obeys hooke?s law exactly)  under the hammer.  Now, with the spring in place, as the hammer falls, it gets bounced back up to the exact same height it started from. Assuming we have the spring so designed that the time it takes the hammer to bounce back up to its starting height is the same time as it takes the pendulum to go from the highest point (and lowest force) in its motion to the lowest point (highest force).  So, the hammer will be back at the top of its swing when the pendulum is pushing down the hardest and thus the hammer will raise up to a new height and fall back down to the spring with even more energy.  Every time the hammer raises higher, the pendulum falls down farther, an exact exchange of gravitational potential energy, until either the pendulum hits the floor or the hammer swings past 90o inclination.  So, the only way to make the hammer go up higher (and thus fall down with more energy) is to raise it up higher and the only way to do that is to make the pendulum?s motion shift downward.  Nothing special here; again, just a modified pulley system.

However, there is kinetic energy transfer between the two systems, the hammer and the pendulum.  Imagine a pendulum attached to a rod about which it is rotating without loss to any frictions.  If the rod is raised or lowered while the pendulum is in motion, the pendulum will continue rotating in the same way (same frequency and amplitude) just shifted up or down with the rod. In other words, the shift in the rod?s height doesn?t affect the kinetic energy of the pendulum attached to it.  The obvious case of this is if we have a motionless pendulum pointed straight downward and we move the rod up and down.  The pendulum bob won?t start to swing back and forth, it?ll just move up and down with the rod and string we?ve attached it to.
Now imagine the hammer; the only way the hammer can have useful energy (in this example) is from its kinetic energy. The only way (in this example) for the hammer to get that kinetic energy is to fall a certain distance.  The greater the distance, the higher the change in potential energy, the greater the kinetic energy. So, imagine the hammer/lever with the pendulum attached, but motionless, in its rest position (pointed straight downward).  If we raise and lower the hammer (with our hands, or whatever) the pendulum will begin to swing. Why?  The pendulum didn?t begin to swing earlier when I imagined it being raised up and down, but now the pendulum is swinging. This seems contradictory, but the difference is that the left end of the lever isn?t moving ?straight? but is rather following a slightly curved path since it is, of course, rotating about the fixed point in the middle. 
Therefore, if the hammer starts to do useful work (instead of hitting our perfect, perfectly timed spring form earlier) it will have to slow down (e.g. from hitting a flywheel or being in the presence of a magnetic drive, etc.).  Since now the hammer is slowing down it won?t be perfectly in sync with the motion of the pendulum and so there will be times when the hammer is falling and the pendulum is falling downward and to the right (or counterclockwise if that?s easier to keep straight;  in this part the direction of the pendulum?s falling is important).  The hammer falling downward causes the left end of the lever to raise (or rotate clockwise), but the pendulum is now rotating counter-clockwise and will thus be slowed since they are moving in opposite directions.  So, the hammer doing work, causes it to be out of sink with the pendulum and thus it ?robs? energy from the pendulum and causes it to slow down.

Also, I did look at some of the website?s data figures.  The first one:
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement1.JPG

where he actually reports the sensational over-unity gain of 11.9% is a flawed experiment because he is measuring, again, force differences, not energy distances.  Without going into the details because this post is already the longest on this thread, I?ll note that the first key to realizing this confusion between force/energy is that the reported over-unity amount is exactly the same as the ratio between the two forces listed in 1) and 2) at the top of the image.

And yes, that was my first post and I apologize for any perceived flippancy.  I hope this helps and I?ll be happy to answer the questions that I?m sure will follow.