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

[AnandAadhar]

Also, that Argentinean device is even more interesting but the inventor prefers to hide. That's a red flag right there.

Yes gravity to my opinion is a conservative force and will not deliver OU energy without any other force providing an input. Ony then the oscillations of Milkovic' two phase pendulum or Finsrud's ball-on-track can prove to be effective in amplicfication. I am still engaged in further testing this notion linking a flat disc inertial oscillator to my IPMM cakra rotor. I hope to find a complementary balanced action between the two fundamental and conservative natural forces of magnetism en gravity that reveals the energy of time. A hopeful, but scientifically naive vision as with a single oscillator in a loop or a single magnet stator/rotor loop, can still be justified in another context. Everybody adds his ideas and the end result is an accumulation of our collective knowledge and experience. All glory to the assembled devotion.

[Mayo]

Too bad that fellow Jovan Marianovic isn't participating in these discussions. There maybe something in his writing but it has to be discussed more thoroughly. He, for instance, observes the fact that the pivot feels no effect of mass at the extreme points when the pendulum is attached to the lever in Milkovic's device, referring to that as gravity shield, but doesn't seem to account for the fact that all this is at the expense of energy spent.

Jovan said several times that movable pivot point costs energy for gravity shield effect.
Pendulum with fixed pivot point costs very little but can not be used for anything. His idea was to fix the problem of movable pivot point with lag of the lever. 

[Omnibus]

Jovan said several times that movable pivot point costs energy for gravity shield effect.
Pendulum with fixed pivot point costs very little but can not be used for anything. His idea was to fix the problem of movable pivot point with lag of the lever.

Maybe he has something rational in mind but it isn't getting across. See if he get here in this forum to explain what his idea really is.

[Omnibus]

Yes gravity to my opinion is a conservative force and will not deliver OU energy without any other force providing an input. Ony then the oscillations of Milkovic' two phase pendulum or Finsrud's ball-on-track can prove to be effective in amplicfication. I am still engaged in further testing this notion linking a flat disc inertial oscillator to my IPMM cakra rotor. I hope to find a complementary balanced action between the two fundamental and conservative natural forces of magnetism en gravity that reveals the energy of time. A hopeful, but scientifically naive vision as with a single oscillator in a loop or a single magnet stator/rotor loop, can still be justified in another context. Everybody adds his ideas and the end result is an accumulation of our collective knowledge and experience. All glory to the assembled devotion.

You know, the oldest OU idea ever, that of the Bhaskara wheel, might have worked. It's a purely gravity machine and the reason I'm saying that is because I've calculated its (one of its latest renditions -- that of Sjack Abeling) overall torque at every position of the wheel and it is persistently negative. Also, you can see that the center of mass is persistently sideways (to the right) with respect to the axle at every angle of rotation. This means that the lever rule is continuously violated at every position of the wheel. Thus, undoubtedly, that machine is intrinsically OU by its very construction. It should be made to spin by some talented engineering which will decrease the friction below the limits of competition with the OU effect. Put sand (increase friction) in an internal combustion engine and it won't work. This, of course, doesn't mean that internal combustion engines cannot work and have never worked in history. Same thing here. Ingenious engineering is what is needed to have a turning Bhaskara wheel (that has probably been the case way back in the centuries but has been suppressed).

[AnandAadhar]

You know, the oldest OU idea ever, that of the Bhaskara wheel, might have worked. It's a purely gravity machine and the reason I'm saying that is because I've calculated its (one of its latest renditions -- that of Sjack Abeling) overall torque at every position of the wheel and it is persistently negative. Also, you can see that the center of mass is persistently sideways (to the right) with respect to the axle at every angle of rotation. This means that the lever rule is continuously violated at every position of the wheel. Thus, undoubtedly, that machine is intrinsically OU by its very construction. It should be made to spin by some talented engineering which will decrease the friction below the limits of competition with the OU effect. Put sand (increase friction) in an internal combustion engine and it won't work. This, of course, doesn't mean that internal combustion engines cannot work and have never worked in history. Same thing here. Ingenious engineering is what is needed to have a turning Bhaskara wheel (that has probably been the case way back in the centuries but has been suppressed).

I have applied the Bhaskara/DaVinci model in a magnetic so-called cakra wheel, a rotor I am testing now for over two years. See my IPMM series.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4449.new.html#new