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

[neptune]

@Johnny874 . Yes I know exactly what you mean . I will put my results on youtube , and let people decide for themselves . I f it works it would be very easy to duplictate .

[gdez]

Go for it Neptune. Let me assure you that if anything, the tsmo is easy to build. i've built at least ten of them, most of them only took several hours. And it was fun. Sorry that i can't explain my projects in advanced physics terms to you, I'm just a steamfitter. I learn by reading, building and experimenting. The tsmo is scalable and there is know excuse to not try to build one. One of my smallest models was the most impressive to me. Sorry I don't have video of that one,  I dropped my cellphone in a puddle and it was lost. Smaller is better anyway, because it's cheaper and you signifigant other won't think your nuts for hanging out in the garage for ten and a half hours. My advice is the escapement route. Who cares if it's overunity? It still is a fantastic device and it just takes less work to get the job done. With an escapement, maybe you would have to reset it every day, but you could do it wether or not there was sunlight, heat, electricity, fuel, etc. If you couldn't physically reset the weight you could use other means, only limited by your imagination. Sorry, I think the tsmo concept is a winner. Also so many people pay to go to the gym, why not pay them to reset the the device for you. Milkovic already recommends that very idea. It just seems too easy to use this device to generate massive kw, even in a compact design. There is no shortage of people willing to work right now and to not go this route almost seems insane.

[neptune]

@gdez . Many thanks for your kind words . Make no apology for being a practical man . Practical men are worth more than pure academics . I started work on a small model today . I like the gym idea , but surely the clients should pay you! Think like a Business man .

[Cloxxki]

OK then . I guess It will have to wait until I get it built . The key thing about my planned demo , is that it will give indesputable measurement of both input and output . I do not expect to see 12 times OU , although I believe that may be possible . If I can see 2.5 or 3 times , I am confident I can loop it . The big question is this . If I can lift a one pound weight more than 2 inches , by allowing another 1 pound weight to fall 2 inches , HAVE I PROVED OVERUNITY ?

The lifted weight will need to remain at the highest point. Oscillating a 2" or even 4" amplitude is just that, an oscillation, and energy-neutral.
It can't be that hard to move the lifted weight to the input side, to do its timely work once more.

Really, think of ball bearings, those roll so nice on metal tracks. The second stage's output is the lift of a ball bearing from its lowest to its highest point. From there is rolls towards the input pendulum, and loses nearly all its energy there. After that, it gently rolls into its place in line to be lifted again by a second stage oscillation.
That's as simple as it get I think.
The trickest part would be the input timing Best seems to be a spring loaded by the bearing's tap, and then a timed release from a trigger attached to the first stage.
You might need a few lined up bearings to get the 2SO fully going, before engaging the output of the second stage. The input is easily measured: the number of bearings required to be placed a the highest point, after the (manual) lift.
Let's say it takes 5 balls before the output can be engaged.
Ideally, a few input taps would be left out, to increase the "stock" of lifted balls well above that initial 5. That would prove OU as well in my book.

Any overunity could be expressed by the amount of work/lift that could be performed by balls between loading the spring, and falling in line below the second stage. Or even just the height loss in the process, providing all kinetic energy is uselessly killed before its being lifted.

Do I make sense at all?

My predicition is it can't sustain full oscillation without having more input than output. Passionately hope to be wrong.

[johnny874]

The lifted weight will need to remain at the highest point. Oscillating a 2" or even 4" amplitude is just that, an oscillation, and energy-neutral.
It can't be that hard to move the lifted weight to the input side, to do its timely work once more.

Really, think of ball bearings, those roll so nice on metal tracks. The second stage's output is the lift of a ball bearing from its lowest to its highest point. From there is rolls towards the input pendulum, and loses nearly all its energy there. After that, it gently rolls into its place in line to be lifted again by a second stage oscillation.
That's as simple as it get I think.
The trickest part would be the input timing Best seems to be a spring loaded by the bearing's tap, and then a timed release from a trigger attached to the first stage.
You might need a few lined up bearings to get the 2SO fully going, before engaging the output of the second stage. The input is easily measured: the number of bearings required to be placed a the highest point, after the (manual) lift.
Let's say it takes 5 balls before the output can be engaged.
Ideally, a few input taps would be left out, to increase the "stock" of lifted balls well above that initial 5. That would prove OU as well in my book.

Any overunity could be expressed by the amount of work/lift that could be performed by balls between loading the spring, and falling in line below the second stage. Or even just the height loss in the process, providing all kinetic energy is uselessly killed before its being lifted.

Do I make sense at all?

My predicition is it can't sustain full oscillation without having more input than output. Passionately hope to be wrong.

   Cloxxki,
I think what webby1 posted is something that might work well with this concept.
Pendulum clocks originally were powered by a falling weight.
If a 2 or 3 section scissor were used, then by closing one arm of the scissors 5cm's,
it could lift a weight twice that. If so, then work to output might be on the OU side
of things. If so, then it would keep the pendulum swinging. I think Vjelko might be
interested. It would compliment his work rather nicely.

                                                                   Jim