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

[exnihiloest]

You have debunked nothing. Marijanovic may or may not be right but you are not qualified to judge. Yours is a provincial blabber of someone desperately trying to appear learned but is only showing his confusion.
...

Omnibus, always involved in personal attacks instead of going to shool for learning?!
Sorry I have no more time to waste with a nutcase.

[exnihiloest]

Hello exnihiloest, I've read carefully your message. You say that in all this paper there is no math, and it's quite true, except for a formula. The author says : "Potential energy of the pendulum raised to height "h",  is m * g * h". Then, he focus on the pendulum raised to 90 degrees: "..pivot point O feels no force in position 1 or position 5. For it, it is the same as if pendulum lost its mass m or gravity acceleration g became zero". We can try it, this is easily verifiable. The result is that if we have a "g=0" effect, the other bob of the oscillator should fall to the ground. This is also easily verifiable. Have you seen this part of the paper? So, what does it means?

Thank you for your interest, Andrea.
When the pendulum is around the lowest position, the height of the pivot point is lower due to the lever movement. This means that the pendulum is lower than its normal position when the pivot point is steady. It has lost potential energy that can be used totally or partially on the other side of the lever.
Then the kinetic energy transforms into potential energy allowing the pendulum to go up again but relatively to the pivot point, which is lower. Thus the new highest position of the pendulum is lower than before. We can think that the pivot point can be freely rose again toward the first position because when the pendulum is at the highest position, it has no weight from the viewpoint of the pivot. This is true, "it is the same as if pendulum lost its mass m". But to rise the pivot point does not mean to rise the pendulum by same height! For example if the pendulum arm is horizontal at the highest position and you rise the pivot point, then the pendulum arm will have an angle. To change the height of the pivot point doesn't change the pendulum height (or very little). You lose a part of the mean height at each swing of the pendulum, depending on the part of its potential energy that you use on the other side of the lever, and consequently you have to regularly push the pendulum to maintain its swing.

About your statements on conservative fields, I don't have enough knowledge of electric field

Well, forget, I was thinking about magnetic field while writing "electric field", so my comparison was not very relevant. I will have to rewrite it.

I just want to remember you that this part of forum is thought for people that hope that the gravity could be used positively, in the future. And they hope this thing well knowing that no one until today has extract anything from the conservative field of gravity. Ok?

BTW, I also think that this forum is a place in which people speak of overunity and the way of reach it. This could be a bit crazy, and maybe could not guide to anything, this is obvious. But all this people is doing it freely and with expense of their money, and above all they do it with no offense for anyone. I don't know if Marjanovic read this forum, but he is also studying this machine without remuneration. So, we can refute his theory, but we can't denigrate him. I really don't understand the users that denigrate, like you do in your posts. What is the meaning of your behavior? Just rudeness, I fear.

The insight of ideas is not dependant on the intentions of the authors. "Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions".
The problem is neither to express fantastic ideas nor to build incredible machines. One day one of them will perhaps work. The problem is to claim that it works for sure without any serious measurements, without third party duplications, and to "explain" not observed facts or not proved facts according to specious theories that are obviously not consistant or containing severe math mistakes (if it is a good intention or a scam, the result is the same: unproductive).

[Omnibus]

Omnibus, always involved in personal attacks instead of going to shool for learning?!
Sorry I have no more time to waste with a nutcase.

Don't waste the time of the readers with your incompetent gibberish.

[Cloxxki]

Why are you saying this? You have admitted more than once that you are not quakified in these matters. What is this desire in people not versed in the matters at hand to express opinions? Maybe you somehow rise In your own eyes and feel important this way? I don't know, this has become an epidemic. The ease to type posts helps, I guess.

Since you asked,
I aspire to use my superficial but intuitive physics understanding to steer greater thinkers towards a shorter path to OU.
Once a working math or mechanical concept is found, I trust my ingenuity will step in to offer a design to take a significant step in optimizing efficiency. Simple, effective applications are my trade.

I have long given you the benefit of the doubt, being obviously several more levels educated than myself. Your deeply rooted unrefutable belief in fully proven OU after just a few calcs, put me off. It sets people on a longer path to actual OU.

I am myself wondering of the motives of the Milkovic and friends group. What are their intentions? Why come with such unfounded papers, and pendulums that merely focus peak load without OU?
Milkovic's science is like the emperor's new clothes. Only the really smart can understand it.

1.1x more output than input would be awesome already.

[Omnibus]

Since you asked,
I aspire to use my superficial but intuitive physics understanding to steer greater thinkers towards a shorter path to OU.
Once a working math or mechanical concept is found, I trust my ingenuity will step in to offer a design to take a significant step in optimizing efficiency. Simple, effective applications are my trade.

I have long given you the benefit of the doubt, being obviously several more levels educated than myself. Your deeply rooted unrefutable belief in fully proven OU after just a few calcs, put me off. It sets people on a longer path to actual OU.

I am myself wondering of the motives of the Milkovic and friends group. What are their intentions? Why come with such unfounded papers, and pendulums that merely focus peak load without OU?
Milkovic's science is like the emperor's new clothes. Only the really smart can understand it.

1.1x more output than input would be awesome already.

That's not enough. We need more competent folks to get involved in this. Pure enthusiasm and hunch doesn't suffice.

And, by the way, how do you know these claims are unfounded? Someone told you that or you have a sound scientific argument to lay out?