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

[FreeEnergy]

[FreeEnergy]

last one before i go to work/job. i think this one is the best so far...

[a19grey]

@EVERYONE
Look at FE's simulation and the graphed kinetic energy results I had posted from it. This is a clear and rather egregious first law violation. Any nay-sayers want to help me understand how this isn't what I think it is? I would greatly appreciate any input that will help me understand how the pendulum can share its kinetic energy with the lever and come out with more energy than it started with...

The fundamental problem with comparing the stationary pendulum's behavior with the pendulum-attached-to-the-lever's behavior is that you should EXPECT the latter to have more energy at some points even if the same input energy was given. This is because the pendulum attached to the lever moves downard in its motion as the lever swings. By moving downward, the pendulum exchanges gravitational potential energy for rotational/kinetic energy.  Also, note how in the energy vs time graphs the graph for the simple pendulum has a regular decreasing periodicity and the lines are really close together. However, in the pendulum-lever energy graphs the periodicity is very complex and the lines are more... rarefied or spread out.  This is because the system is more complex and so there are points (at the same value for time t) where, yes, the lever-pendulum has more energy, but there are also times where the lever-pendulum actually has less energy than the simple pendulum.  It oscillates more wildly and between a slightly higher extreme than the simple pendulum (since the lever-pendulum falls a bit and therefore the motion of the lever is connected to the motion of the pendulum) but there isn't any new energy being created. Or, at the very least, this example does not show an excess of energy. The difficulty here is, of course, that it's impossible to prove a negative, so no one's going to be able to 'prove' it doesn't create more energy.

[FreeEnergy]

is this a software glitch? i am sure we can use this kick if it is for real.

[Dingus Mungus]

It oscillates more wildly and between a slightly higher extreme than the simple pendulum (since the lever-pendulum falls a bit and therefore the motion of the lever is connected to the motion of the pendulum) but there isn't any new energy being created. Or, at the very least, this example does not show an excess of energy. The difficulty here is, of course, that it's impossible to prove a negative, so no one's going to be able to 'prove' it doesn't create more energy.

I think you are overlooking the biggest whole in your argument... If the pendulum on the lever is introduced with no kinetic energy, then the net kinetic energy for the whole device is zero. The pendulum lever has several times the friction pins and surface area to be effected by wind resistance, yet it swings for longer and with more intensity than the stationary pendulum. To phrase it another way the pendulum lever does more work to sustain its running tempo, yet it runs more efficiently then a standard pendulum that was given the same kinetic starting energy. If the lever pendulum is doing more work and is draining less energy to continue its swing; this is unarguably a improvement in comparison to a standard pendulum. We can agree on that right?

To debate this you don't need to prove a negitive, just that we are somehow giving more energy to one pendulum then the other. I'm pretty positive that we are not, but I encourage naysayers to download examine and test for themselves. Only through understanding will anything be proven. We don't understand why we are getting back kinetic averages of 100-400% of the introduction energy, but we aren't willing to assume its inconslusive without understanding it.

Thank you for your devotion to the quest for answers,
~Dingus