All,
If indeed output is greater than input as so nicely demonstrated with the squeeze-lamps by its inventor on video's (don't have them handy now), how hard would it be to gather some electricity from the output, and use it to, pinball machine style, give the pendulum a small push, perhaps even twice a full swing?
It seems that all that's needed is then one or a few initial pushes, and the thing could sustain itself, as well as doing some useful work on top of that?
The pinball setup would ensure good impuls, at exactly the right time. One could even devise a secundary pendulum, to let the actuator be amplitude-independent. But carefully monitoring work done should realtively easily be able to keep the pendulum swinging with it's uptimum range.
I can imagine closing the loop mechanically, but that seems to stumble on more timing issues. If such a loop has been closed before, please point me to coverage of that?
Thanks,
J
Quote from: Cloxxki on May 10, 2009, 05:59:32 AM
If indeed output is greater than input as so nicely demontrated
sorry but it is NOT demonstrated
and
nobody can loop this Milkovic's two-stage !!
It's all about timing!
Hey, if it's not proven yet, the proper timing (solved by the pinball device) might help towards disprove or otherwise firmly comfirm it.
When a pinball touches the bounce plate, a current start running triggering the plate to repell the ball. If the pendulum is a ball, the slight push could come just when it's needed.
In case of too strong a pendulum swing, the piball plate could be mounted on a spring, to absorb and then reverse the impuls. If at the sme time the load setting on the generator is increased accordingly, the next pendulum incoming swing should be reduced already.
If none works, then apparently all the devise does, is concentrate force to momentarily apply more weight than the pendulum's weight could apply constantly. Like jumping on the bathroom scale. It WILL show more than you weight, as long as you spend some time in mid-air and put all your weight back on the scales.
Just trying to come up with an idea to (dis)prove that the machine is overunity.
Who knows, perhaps the same slight impuls from the "hand", with a longer levers, could also lift such heavy weights or compress that many squeeze lamps.
Cloxxki:
Try look at this interesting ball-clock system.
http://www.betrisey.ch/ecyclo.htm
Nice image ruggero! Just migth work, and just might not.
A pendulum being free swinging though, at least the thing won't grind itself to pieces when engaged.
My last name is actually a translation of "clock". I like that thing, but wonder if it has any other sytem keeping it running. The falling balls seems to be for the timing, not for winding?
Quote from: Cloxxki on May 10, 2009, 05:59:32 AM
All,
If indeed output is greater than input as so nicely demonstrated with the squeeze-lamps by its inventor on videos.
How does the squeeze lamp demo prove anything? Yes, the flashlight in hand lights up, and all the other bulbs light up. So what? The human hand is putting in way more energy than what is output. Suppose the flashlight in the hand was broken and did not light up? The experiment would not be any different.
Quote from: tagor on May 10, 2009, 06:19:41 AM
sorry but it is NOT demonstrated
and
nobody can loop this Milkovic's two-stage !!
Well, nobody... Studying the pendulum to drive a flywheel, I've also studied the two-phase pendulum of Milkovic, and looped the two phase pendulum succesfully with a flywheel and a feedback magnet pulsing back the pendulum, but it gave no overunity in my set-up. It works indeed as he demonstrates, the pendulum being pushed can drive a wheel or a pump. But claiming overunity here is a bridge too far to my opinion. Milkovic inertial oscillator is inspiring though. The principle works best if you create a disc with a weight positioned on one side and then vibrate the axis in a linear fashion. That easily gives a turning rotor. Thus it is suited for converting a linear movement into a cyclic one. Inertial oscillation is a principle used by Finsrud also in His perpetuum mobile. His ball is the weight oscillating the central pendulum in his machine. So there is a connection with PM and OU. But gravity (like magnetism) alone is conservative and will not deliver energy without engaging magnetism actively with this gavitational oscillator e.g.. That is my conclusion as yet.
My Milkovic replication Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJsXLiLNJHA
My Finsrud analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9GucVwc36Q
Quote from: AnandAadhar on July 17, 2010, 09:32:54 AM
Well, nobody... Studying the pendulum to drive a flywheel, I've also studied the two-phase pendulum of Milkovic, and looped the two phase pendulum succesfully with a flywheel and a feedback magnet pulsing back the pendulum, but it gave no overunity in my set-up. It works indeed as he demonstrates, the pendulum being pushed can drive a wheel or a pump. But claiming overunity here is a bridge too far to my opinion. Milkovic inertial oscillator is inspiring though. The principle works best if you create a disc with a weight positioned on one side and then vibrate the axis in a linear fashion. That easily gives a turning rotor. Thus it is suited for converting a linear movement into a cyclic one. Inertial oscillation is a principle used by Finsrud also in His perpetuum mobile. His ball is the weight oscillating the central pendulum in his machine. So there is a connection with PM and OU. But gravity (like magnetism) alone is conservative and will not deliver energy without engaging magnetism actively with this gavitational oscillator e.g.. That is my conclusion as yet.
My Milkovic replication Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJsXLiLNJHA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJsXLiLNJHA)
My Finsrud analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9GucVwc36Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9GucVwc36Q)
very good work !!
Nice work, but, in order to get large kinetic energy on side where work is being done you need to have pendulum swinging at least 60° to its vertical axis. Pendulum potential force (energy) has to be greater or equal to centrifugal force (energy, angular momentum), ideal case is at 90° because there is no force on x nor y axis. This is the best case for bearings as well as they work in special case here > static friction is reduced to minimum.
I am working with friend on replicating device and have conducted a lot of research and simulations in Working Model / Solidworks. At this point i think the best way to drive pendulum is using magbot pendulum, 3 coils for 75° pendulum angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNn4Ebq7IYU
and transform linear motion to rotatial motian with this device:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a49d5cJOGQ0
and connecting it to a generator that is being looped to magbot pendulum
on pic, right graph shows kinetic energy of square and potential energy of pendulum ratio when "small" angle is used (54°)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg146.imageshack.us%2Fimg146%2F2552%2Ftest7.th.jpg&hash=11a7f83ea7899d9411f4fa2db206e049a4383b46) (http://img146.imageshack.us/i/test7.jpg/)
@AnandAadhar,
Thank you very much for posting these videos. You are doing a great job and it should be encouraged. I wish there were more people like you and in this way the world will recognize sooner these discoveries.
As you may know, I visited Finsrud personally and then posted two ~45min videos of his perpetuum mobile also presenting it as the first openly demonstrated perpetuum mobile in history. There are still some subtleties, however, brought about by critics (I'm, of course, ignoring the general unsubstantiated negativism by a great many self-proclaimed experts) which I think need to be addressed and I'd like to ask you about your opinion.
One critic claimed that this is just a very efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy. As you know, this is not a self-starter but Finsrud has to push the ball along the track initially in order to start the machine. If it really is only an efficient re-distributor of that initially imparted energy it may go on turning for quite a few days but it will inevitably stop at one point. I know his explanation for that ceasing of motion claiming that's only due to wearing out of the parts and thus changing the initial mechanical conditions. Also, there's dust, humidity, change of temperature etc. which may play a role. But, still, supposing such factors as the stopping mechanism isn't enough as proof.
Second critic insisted that Finsrud is winding up the machine when cleaning the track with a cloth before the initial push. There's one large spring in the center (besides the many other springs which the device is sprinkled with) which that critic claims to be the driving spring after winding it up.
How would you address these two points?
Quote from: utilitarian on May 10, 2009, 03:30:47 PM
How does the squeeze lamp demo prove anything? Yes, the flashlight in hand lights up, and all the other bulbs light up. So what? The human hand is putting in way more energy than what is output. Suppose the flashlight in the hand was broken and did not light up? The experiment would not be any different.
@utilitarian;
If you mentally “OR†the output flashlights when they are “on†you are
supposed to convince yourself that this is more energy then the person
expends at the input flashlight.
It would be very easy to test if this is true by removing the lamps from
the flashlights and “ORâ€ing the power together electrically through diodes
into a 1000uf+ electrolytic filter capacitor.
Then build a fairly hefty Bedini mirror circuit and coil to add energy
to swing the input Pendulum, using a Neo magnet glued to the base
of it. (ie. no batteries for CF)
This would be a very simple task to get a high quality result. They
would either get it to work *or* they could stop lying with videos.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: Omnibus on July 17, 2010, 11:08:41 AM
@AnandAadhar,
Thank you very much for posting these videos. You are doing a great job and it should be encouraged. I wish there were more people like you and in this way the world will recognize sooner these discoveries.
As you may know, I visited Finsrud personally and then posted two ~45min videos of his perpetuum mobile also presenting it as the first openly demonstrated perpetuum mobile in history. There are still some subtleties, however, brought about by critics (I'm, of course, ignoring the general unsubstantiated negativism by a great many self-proclaimed experts) which I think need to be addressed and I'd like to ask you about your opinion.
One critic claimed that this is just a very efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy. As you know, this is not a self-starter but Finsrud has to push the ball along the track initially in order to start the machine. If it really is only an efficient re-distributor of that initially imparted energy it may go on turning for quite a few days but it will inevitably stop at one point. I know his explanation for that ceasing of motion claiming that's only due to wearing out of the parts and thus changing the initial mechanical conditions. Also, there's dust, humidity, change of temperature etc. which may play a role. But, still, supposing such factors as the stopping mechanism isn't enough as proof.
Second critic insisted that Finsrud is winding up the machine when cleaning the track with a cloth before the initial push. There's one large spring in the center (besides the many other springs which the device is sprinkled with) which that critic claims to be the driving spring after winding it up.
How would you address these two points?
Thank you the same for posting your video's. I still wonder since what a visit of mine might add to yours. As for those points:
Well, first of all Finsrud's machine runs for quite some more time than a few days, even though there is dust collected on the track. isn't it months? Also regular realignment of the magnets seems to be necessary. This is normal maintenance. Not an energizing action. In my opinion he has mechanically found the definition of time as the found restlessness between the basic forces of gravity and magnetism in a decreased probability of equiibrium. He is one of the few who throws light on this matter of time as a direct source of material energy. One replication suffices to change the world of physics. Till then it is just kinetic artwork with possibly a hidden drive in the base. But I personally don't think he lies. He does not have the psychological profile of a sociopath. He is married, has children and a regular job as an art teacher.
Critical point two, studying the mechanism the spring isn't loaded but pressured by the weight of the setup. So there is no winding up with a gradual release as far as I am concerned.
@AnandAadhar,
Finsrud is an amazing man, undoubtedly -- very creative and very artistic. To see his superb work in the beautiful art gallery amidst a wheat field not far from Oslo is an experience in itself. So, visiting him is worth every bit of your time, I think. In addition, you may want to do some simple non-destructive experiments, especially involving timing, to verify there's no slowing down. I did some timing measurements with the videos I posted in Google video. There's a characteristic clack at every turn and I used WaveLab to compare the time between these clacks at the beginning and at the end of the vid. I didn't find a pronounced slowing down and there seemed to be even acceleration at certain moments. These studies are inconclusive, however, and Finsrud didn't answer my asking him to visit him again with the intention to do some more studies on the machine. The timing studies have to be done for an extended periods, longer than just the 45min in my videos, using an adequate measuring instrument, a data acquisition system, that can objectively record these clacks for further analysis. There are some other non-intrusive simple experiments that can be done to determine conclusively as to whether or not we're indeed dealing with a perpetuum mobile. Otherwise, I tend to agree with your understanding regarding the device being an efficient re-distributor as well as the winding issue. Unfortunately, that's just a hunch while we need hard evidence.
You should move the discussion on Milkovic's oscillator to the main topic, so that others can follow every new progress in one place
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.1380
@AnandAadhar
you should read these two papers published by Milkovic team on attempts to mechanically close the loop
Mechanical Feedback Loop Problems and Possible Solutions for the Two-Stage Oscillator of Veljko Milkovic
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Mechanical_Feedback_Loop.pdf
Keys of Understanding Gravity Machines of Veljko Milkovic
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Key_of_Gravity_Machines.pdf
Closing the loop on this device should be simple in principle. You could use a solenoid plunger or pulse motor rotation. Have you checked the results of Raymond Heade's work in the Dallas Texas area? He was supposed to have built a large outdoor device with an attachment to close the loop in October of 2009. I haven't kept up with it lately, you might write Raymond, he's easy to talk to and his input is in these forums.
Quote from: Merg on July 18, 2010, 12:34:29 PM
You should move the discussion on Milkovic's oscillator to the main topic, so that others can follow every new progress in one place
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.1380
@AnandAadhar
you should read these two papers published by Milkovic team on attempts to mechanically close the loop
Mechanical Feedback Loop Problems and Possible Solutions for the Two-Stage Oscillator of Veljko Milkovic
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Mechanical_Feedback_Loop.pdf
Keys of Understanding Gravity Machines of Veljko Milkovic
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Key_of_Gravity_Machines.pdf
I've also built a looped oscillator with a disc out of balance. No overunity found. But it is a nice preparation for Finsrud's way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAKzW0H2yY
see the discussion there:http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.1380
easiest way without modifying the general function is..........build two of the same size and weights.....
works with electrical generators too, use one as the "motor" and one as the "generator"
both can be used in place of the other...so logically ones output should be able to match the input of the second
easiest test for any PMM
Milkovic's arrangement will not "close the loop".... http://thecolemechanism.blogspot.com/
Quote from: Cloxxki on May 10, 2009, 05:59:32 AM
All,
If indeed output is greater than input as so nicely demonstrated with the squeeze-lamps by its inventor on video's (don't have them handy now), how hard would it be to gather some electricity from the output, and use it to, pinball machine style, give the pendulum a small push, perhaps even twice a full swing?
It seems that all that's needed is then one or a few initial pushes, and the thing could sustain itself, as well as doing some useful work on top of that?
The pinball setup would ensure good impuls, at exactly the right time. One could even devise a secundary pendulum, to let the actuator be amplitude-independent. But carefully monitoring work done should realtively easily be able to keep the pendulum swinging with it's uptimum range.
I can imagine closing the loop mechanically, but that seems to stumble on more timing issues. If such a loop has been closed before, please point me to coverage of that?
Thanks,
J
reply #116 is an idea I have sent to Jovan Milkovic. Thought I'd let you know.
Re: My Invention (http://www.overunity.com/12597/my-invention/msg335431/#msg335431)«
Reply #116 on: September 08, 2012, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: ruggero on May 10, 2009, 06:46:14 AM
It's all about timing!
ruggero was real close, it's a shame no one thought of pushing the weight which is how they gain their inital force.
Quote from: Merg on July 18, 2010, 12:34:29 PM
You should move the discussion on Milkovic's oscillator to the main topic, so that others can follow every new progress in one place
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.1380 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.1380)
@AnandAadhar
you should read these two papers published by Milkovic team on attempts to mechanically close the loop
Mechanical Feedback Loop Problems and Possible Solutions for the Two-Stage Oscillator of Veljko Milkovic
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Mechanical_Feedback_Loop.pdf (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Mechanical_Feedback_Loop.pdf)
Keys of Understanding Gravity Machines of Veljko Milkovic
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Key_of_Gravity_Machines.pdf (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Key_of_Gravity_Machines.pdf)
I accidentally found this thread this morning. It looks like one of the experimenters working with Milkovic actually studied and commented on the Lee-Tseung Lead-out energy theory.
I believe that he missed a few important points:
1. In supplying 2 parts of horizontal energy to lead-out 1 part of vertical (graviational) energy, 3 parts of energy goes into the system. The 2 parts of horizonntal energy is not "converted" as heat or other forms. But if you stop supplying the horizontal energy, no more vertical energy will be lead-out or brought-in.
2. If we look at the youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8)
you will notice that the lifting of the weight only occurred at large angle of swing. This is in line with our full analysis. The experimenter failed to use this fact and used small angle of swing only.
3. The experimenter did not realize that we can effectively increase the gravitational force by using a magnetic pendulum with other permanent magnets placed appropriately. Both the direction and magnitude of the "gravitational force" can be varied. This is the key to the next stage.
4. The experimenter rightly agreed that an unbalanced wheel is equivalent to a pendulum but with the added advantage that the period of oscillation is not dependent on the length (but on speed of rotation).
5. A "balanced" wheel when subjected to pulses and varying magnetic fields can lead-out the electromagnetic energy. This is a follow-up consequence of leading-out gravitational energy.
I shall try to contact the experimenter directly and share some insights.
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification from hotmail.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
jmarjanovic@hotmail.com
I shall quote his comments and further discuss the points raised here.
Hi !
With a double oscillatory system ( Milkovic / lever - pendulum type ) it's questionable to " Close the loop " / to obtain a continuous regular process .
Let's remind Galileo and his shorted pendulum , at :
www.thomasksimpson.com/dialectical_images/19.jpg
With a double pendulum (if we replace a pendulum with a double pendulum...) , at :
http://blogs.mathworks.com/images/pick/doublependulum_animation.gif (http://blogs.mathworks.com/images/pick/doublependulum_animation.gif) , we can have some not consistent /irregular results , maybe...for a continuous erratic simple machine ?!
Al_ex
Quote from: iacob alex on September 10, 2014, 11:05:10 AM
Hi !
With a double oscillatory system ( Milkovic / lever - pendulum type ) it's questionable to " Close the loop " / to obtain a continuous regular process .
.....
Al_ex
Quote from: ltseung888 on September 09, 2014, 06:04:33 PM
2. If we look at the youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8)
you will notice that the lifting of the weight only occurred at large angle of swing. This is in line with our full analysis. The experimenter failed to use this fact and used small angle of swing only.
The Milkovic lever pendulum type pendulum as shown in the above quoted youtube video can be considered as having the following:
1. A simple pendulum to accept input.
2. A lever system to convert the swinging energy into lifting a weight.
3. The lifting of the weight occurs only at large angle of swing.
4. One push of the pendulum corresponds to twice lifting of the weight.
5. The Output energy can be determined accurately by the total height of the weight times the mass of the weight times g. (The total potential energy or work done in lifting the weight.)
Output Energy = mgh
6. The Input energy can be determined accurately by replacing the pendulum bob with a magnet with the S pole facing RHS. A solenoid or electromagnet driven by pulsed direct current can be used to generate repulsion. There can be a sensor mechanism to determine the start of the pulse. The pulse duration can be adjusted. The Input Energy can be determined accurately via an oscilloscope via integrating the Voltage and Current of the Pulse.
7. Note that the experiment must be done at large angles when the weight is actually lifted.
Most of the loopback attempts do NOT satisfy point 7. Failure is expected.....
This particular experiment simplifies the overunity determination as it eliminates the losses and mechanical complications.
Some experimenters who already built similar devices can modify to test the above 7 points.
Divine Revelation?
Quote from: ltseung888 on September 10, 2014, 02:37:05 PM
The Milkovic lever pendulum type pendulum as shown in the above quoted youtube video can be considered as having the following:
1. A simple pendulum to accept input.
2. A lever system to convert the swinging energy into lifting a weight.
3. The lifting of the weight occurs only at large angle of swing.
4. One push of the pendulum corresponds to twice lifting of the weight.
5. The Output energy can be determined accurately by the total height of the weight times the mass of the weight times g. (The total potential energy or work done in lifting the weight.)
Output Energy = mgh
6. The Input energy can be determined accurately by replacing the pendulum bob with a magnet with the S pole facing RHS. A solenoid or electromagnet driven by pulsed direct current can be used to generate repulsion. There can be a sensor mechanism to determine the start of the pulse. The pulse duration can be adjusted. The Input Energy can be determined accurately via an oscilloscope via integrating the Voltage and Current of the Pulse.
7. Note that the experiment must be done at large angles when the weight is actually lifted.
Most of the loopback attempts do NOT satisfy point 7. Failure is expected.....
This particular experiment simplifies the overunity determination as it eliminates the losses and mechanical complications.
Some experimenters who already built similar devices can modify to test the above 7 points.
Divine Revelation?
7. Note that the experiment must be done at large angles when the weight is actually lifted.In Physics, work is done (energy is spent) only when there is displacement. With the many looped mechanisms shown on the Internet, the experimenters missed that point totally. So far, I have not seen a single experiment that used the large angle with actual lifting of the weight. If the experiments were done with small angles without lifting the weight, no OUTPUT work was done. No overunity effect can be seen.
The main thread is too long. Can someone familiar with that thread comment on this "new insight"?
Divine Revelation?
In analyzing the Milkovic 2 stage pendulum as shown on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8)
We noted that after 2.30 minutes, a single push by the hand will lift the weight twice. On close examination, the lifting of the Weight appeared to be when the pendulum bob is swinging with the maximum velocity at the vertical position.
It should now be clear to all experimenters that any overunity measurement or loopback mechanism MUST be done at large angles when the weight is actually lifted.
Hi 888
no amount of theoretical calculations can replace a simple running device demonstrating a closed loop. It might be better trying to explain the energy cycle.
Kind Regards
Mark