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

[ltseung888]

I think Chalkalis tried that in real life with large weight, he never came through with a OU claim, but it did move continuously.

Chalkalis spent his time playing with heavier weights and their distribution.  He would have been better off using Unbalanced Cylinders and focus on the more important element - rotational speed.  Chas Campbell did better but he used balanced wheels.  The unbalancing was achieved via belts and possibly bad machining.

Tsinghua University did the right thing and got the best result (30 times increase in Input Energy) via fast rotating Unbalanced Cylinders.  That configuation can power not just one machine but the entire factory.

[Paul-R]

I do not believe in simulation.  It does not predict lead-out energy in any situation.  I believe the assumptions made in the program rule out lead-out energy.

Yes, their equations assume conventional Physics.

It would be interesting to put a Bedini SG under such scrutiny and ask the manufacturers to explain the discrepancies.

[noonespecial]

I do not believe in simulation.  It does not predict lead-out energy in any situation.  I believe the assumptions made in the program rule out lead-out energy.

We either have to re-write the simulation program or believe in real experiments.

We can all see the lifting of weights in the Milovic 2SO with the pendulum.  We can all see the lifting of weights in the Chan Wheel.  There must be something wrong with the simulation program if it cannot predict the observations...

Here's another snapshot of two unbalanced wheels. One is static and the other in the Milkovic/Chan configuration. I've added a spring as the load.

With a second degree of freedom, we can start to see the energy gain over a static unbalanced wheel. Notice the highlighted difference in N/sec with the one on the right which shows the averaged N/sec over time:

[noonespecial]

Just a comment on 2D simulation programs. I have been burned many times assuming my build results would emulate what was shown in the simulation. Let's just say that I would never bet my life savings on the predicted numerical results.

That being said, the program is beneficial when comparing one design against another (apples to apples) like when you change one parameter to see what impact it has.

In the two examples that I've shown, if you reject the first, then you must also reject the second.

[ltseung888]

Just a comment on 2D simulation programs. I have been burned many times assuming my build results would emulate what was shown in the simulation. Let's just say that I would never bet my life savings on the predicted numerical results.

That being said, the program is beneficial when comparing one design against another (apples to apples) like when you change one parameter to see what impact it has.

In the two examples that I've shown, if you reject the first, then you must also reject the second.

Can you use the 2D simulation program on an unbalanced Chan wheel?  If the Milokovic 2SO has energy gain, the Chan Wheel (unbalanced wheel) should do much better.

Can we compare the result of a pendulum with that of an unbalanced wheel?

I also believe that the torque comparison between a balanced wheel and an unbalanced wheel in the first case may be wrong.  An unbalanced wheel must produce a varying torque?

(I never used the 2D program.  One engineer told me years ago that the 2D program never predicted any energy gain.  Now you have shown otherwise?  He probably never thought of second degree of freedom.)

Thank you in advance.