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

[aleks]

Uh, actually I think that torsion is not wasted energy as it is not converted to another form.
With a pendulum, most likely its' v would be calculated by the vertical drop and the distance it would travel.
In other words, if its' swing is twice the distance as the vertical drop, then it would have 1/2 the acceleration rate of gravity.
So what would need to be accounted for is the slower rate of acceleration. And how does its' motion effect this ? Does it cause a further slowing in its' acceleration or does it help to increase it ?
Such as, if the fulcrum is being lifted, does this cause the bob to lose force relative to the lift of the fulcrum ?

I do not mean torsion, but when pendulum swings it stretches. Stretching usually wastes energy by turning into heat and the material that stretches loses its mechanic durability. On the other hand if we pretend that pendulum's arm stretching does not cause energy loss and always recovers then this suggests that inertia inversion in a large body without much energy expense is possible. You just have to think how it's possible. However, if you change inertia into the direction opposite to fall, the inertia will quickly revert to zero due to ever-lasting gravity pull. This means that the other element of "gravity engine" beside inertia shielding (or redirecting) is required: which is gravity pull shielding, and that is out of the scope of just the mechanical device. Well, if my speculations on gravity are valid: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Anti-Gravity:DC_Acoustic_Waves_Hypothesis then gravity device should include some exploding or imploding processes just to be able to shield the earthly gravity force.

[petersone]

Spent hours reading this topic,and others,one thing comes to mind,that is,if it is so important to have the correct balance between pendalum and lever,how come you can"do what you like with the lever,and it makes no difference to the pendalum."when in reality it will make a lot of difference,I've tried it.I think if it is going to work,anythink you do with the lever has to be factored in to the set up,any change to the work done by the lever, the setup must be redone.
smashing forum,I spend far more hours on here than I should.

[JBB]

Hi all,

I had a chance to work and experiment with the two-stage mechanical oscillator of Veljko Milkovic you are talking here about.

I did several analyses that confirmed Milkovic's claims and here are the first two that are translated in English:

• ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE DURING OPERATION OF THE TWO-STAGE MECHANICAL OSCILLATOR BY VELJKO MILKOVIÃ,,†:
  "...It seems clear that the influence of the centrifugal force is the key to the explanation of the energy surplus of the two-stage oscillator by Veljko MilkoviÃ,,‡, the inventor."
  http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Analysis_Jovan_Bebic_1.pdf
  
  MEASURING THE RATIO OF OUTPUT AND INPUT ENERGY OF THE TWO-STAGE MECHANICAL OSCILLATOR BY VELJKO MILKOVIÃ,,†:
  "...Therefore, ratio of energy at the output and energy at the input is 22.89..."
  http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Analysis_Jovan_Bebic_2-measuring.pdf

[ChileanOne]

Hello JBB:

Thanks for bringing these papers here. I am not math wizard, but I see some outstanding oversimplifications in your ideas, that might lead to very heated debate. Not telling that your conclusions are wrong, not at all, just that the numbers will be debated and probably for a long time, so I amsking you to take a step back and look at it from a bit more far to try and see what I might be refereing to.

Regards!

[astroshima]

MEASURING THE RATIO OF OUTPUT AND INPUT ENERGY OF THE TWO-STAGE MECHANICAL OSCILLATOR BY VELJKO MILKOVIÃ,,†:
"...Therefore, ratio of energy at the output and energy at the input is 22.89..."
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Analysis_Jovan_Bebic_2-measuring.pdf[/li][/list]

Congratulations Jovan!!!
Finally somebody (trying to) do a real work-energy measurement.
BTW I did the same measurement but with different device so our results are different.
The way I solved "the problem" with measuring heights on weight 2 (output) was to do 10 experiments and use average or minimal heights values...but I suppose that even this one experiment could be enough for the insight about the magnitude of output work...
1. For your measurement to have more scientific and other influence I think you should shot experiment with video camera... ofcourse if you have time and resources... You can use paper and draw lines on it as a ruler. Then put the paper behind weights ...so the camera(s) can catch almost exact heights!

2. I think the one more (little) different experiment is needed so I ask you, or somebody else, to do it! PLEASE!
That would be the final proof!
Put some consumer or generator to measure output work!!! For example try to do electric measurement with unimer or oscilloscope or ...
Since we now exactly know input work, by putting consumer or generator on the output end, we could precisely measure and prove or disprove overunity! If you or somebody else do this and document whole experiment with video camera and if that measurement show overunity, you (or somebody who do this) will be world famous (scientist and) person!!!
PC: I think all previous experiments (done by other people) that show forces "measurement" have no scientific or real value, but this type of (work, energy) measurement, like you do, are the real ones!!! You have precise data about input work. That is something that hasn't been done  yet! (Stroking pendulum with dynamo lamp do not show input (energy or) work and observing large output forces also do not show output (energy or) work!)

One more Congratulations on your effort to do the real scientific measurements!!!