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

[fishman]

@Replaced
Here are a couple of threads that might help you understand your questions.http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10172-why-perpetual-motion-machines-do-not-exist.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10197-gravity-not-force.html#post173498

If you seek the truth, you might find those helpful. But if you already no all the answers...

Those threads were constructive for the most part. Your comments here, not so much.

[neptune]

@Replaced .You say that my machine does not work . That is not a fair conclusion , as I have only completed a small fraction of the tests I need to do . At least I am searching . The extra enegy will come from gravity . Yes I know that gravity is a conservative force .But what if we had a way to switch gravity on and off , with a minimum of invested energy ? We do have that means . It is called a pendulum . At its highest point , as it changes direction , it is momentarily weightless .If it starts from the horizontal position , at bottom dead centre , it weighs 3 times normal . If it starts from a nearly upside down position , then at bottom dead centre it weighs 5 times normal .
          As I see it , there are 2 possible futures for mankind . Either we shall discover new ways to create energy , or we shall see a return to Mediaeval times .,except that there will not be enough horses to go round , so they will be replaced by slaves .There will be widespread starvation , and canibalism . Tell us what YOU are doing about it .
ADDED LATER . I have now refitted the original pendulum with a bearing from an old electric motor . I was amazed how long it will swing with a little push , compared to the original pivot which was just a steel rod through a hole in wood .Still no OU , but a measurable increase in efficiency .My next tests will involve extending the output arm .After all what I have tested up to now is not really a Milkovic Oscillator .The main reason I am convinced I can prove OU , is that rhead100 has already done so [see video 7 on his youtube channel].What I want to bring to the table [to use a modern stupid expression ] is undeniable exact measurement of input and output in a way that has never been done before . The test rig I have now is a bit of a lash-up and sooner or later I shall build a bigger better one . Budget constraints are a big problem , but we shall overcome .

[neptune]

Just a brief update . Today I spent the time I had available altering the lever . I now have a 3.5 to 1 ratio . I have also reinforced the main frame in a few places . I can do no more until the wood glue dries . If I am able to replicate the OU shown by rhead100 , I have some original ideas to tryto close the loop .Of course rhead might beat me to it , in which case I will be the first to congratulate [and copy] him .

[neptune]

I managed to get an hour in the workshop today . I decided to do some tests with the lever at a 3 to 1 ratio . Results were no better than with a 1 to 1 ratio . The best efficiency I managed was about 60% . I still have ideas to try . Slight modification will allow me to run for 3 or 4 cycles , and then measure the total hight lost by the pendulum weight . Hopefully , I will find time to do this tomorrow . I want to exhaust all possibilities with this rig before I take it apart and build something different . It is quite possible that size is working against me , and that one needs a bigger rig to show OU .My pendulum weighs only 1Kilo gram , as against about 100 kg on rhead100 machine . Time will tell .

[neptune]

This seems to be my own private thread at the moment! No workshop time today . However I have been doing some serious thinking about the 2SO . I am a bit disappointed that I have been unable to prove OU  up to now .There can only be two possible reasons for this . Either no one has built an OU 2SO , or my particular 2SO is not OU. Looking again at the work and videos of Raymond Head [rhead100 ] his demonstrations seem to show OU . However he , like Milkovic has no perfect way to measure input . The Milkovic fish scale method is inacurate , and his demo with the lever operated torch [hand lamp] is to me open to deception because one can continue to push the pendulum with the torch after its lever has completed its travel .
     To measure the input continuously when the pendulum is pushed by hand every cycle . I suggest two methods .
1 . Tape a load cell to the palm of your hand , and monitor its output on
a computer.By logging pressure and duration we can compute input energy for each stroke .
2 . Instead of pushing it with the hand , push it with a lever . The lever is operated by a falling weight , and is reset by hand after each stroke . The distance the weight can fall is adjusted so it just maintains the pendulum amplitude . With this low tech method we know the exact input at each stroke .
          For a mechanical device to be looped , it needs to be at least 2 times OU to compensate for losses .If it is only , say one and a half times , it could still have its uses , in muscle powered  devices .
  Accurate measurement is the key , gut feelings are unreliable . we can fall into what I call the bicycle syndrome . It is a proven fact , that if you walk a mile , you can cycle 3 miles for the same amount of energy . This does not mean the a bike is 3 times OU , it just means that walking is a relatively inefficient way to travel .
         There is always the possibility that my method of measuring the input energy for just one swing of the pendulum is in some way flawed , but at this stage , I can not see how . I would appreciate opinions from everyone .