What is clear, is that SteinerP and the rest of the crew at veljkomilkovic.com have decided, based on theory, that their device is overunity, and will not do any appropriate control experiments to determine whether it really is or not.

Of course it isn't, and the theory is severely flawed.

There are several ways that one may test a device like this, in an appropriate manner. For example, the business end could work a piston air compressor and the compressed air could be used to power a pump. Or another milkovic pendulum. Or anything. The losses in compressed air systems are well-understood and the overall energy throughput could be accurately calculated.

But experiments like this, which would show that the pendulum is under-unity, obviously are flawed--because the system is already known to be OU and if your experiment doesn't show this, the experiment is flawed.

I kid you not--this is the way these people will "reason" about their experimentation and their device.

If the usability is obvious, please give a single design for a device that would work better, powered by a milkovic pendulum. Other than a chaotic pendulum demonstrator, perhaps!

Milkovic + Bedini test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeX_Tst2tU

Quote from: TinselKoala on December 28, 2008, 06:57:33 PM
What is clear, is that SteinerP and the rest of the crew at veljkomilkovic.com have decided, based on theory, that their device is overunity, and will not do any appropriate control experiments to determine whether it really is or not.

Of course it isn't, and the theory is severely flawed.

There are several ways that one may test a device like this, in an appropriate manner. For example, the business end could work a piston air compressor and the compressed air could be used to power a pump. Or another milkovic pendulum. Or anything. The losses in compressed air systems are well-understood and the overall energy throughput could be accurately calculated.

But experiments like this, which would show that the pendulum is under-unity, obviously are flawed--because the system is already known to be OU and if your experiment doesn't show this, the experiment is flawed.

I kid you not--this is the way these people will "reason" about their experimentation and their device.

If the usability is obvious, please give a single design for a device that would work better, powered by a milkovic pendulum. Other than a chaotic pendulum demonstrator, perhaps!

"...the rest of the crew at veljkomilkovic.com"
"...this is the way these people will "reason" about their experimentation and their device"

Instead of this kind of language (which obviously can augment the numbers of posts and receive a rank of hero member in quantity over quality), could you please focus solely on what is the topic instead of addressing people that you do not know and cannot by any means label as somebody's crew. Your expertise would than be more than appreciated and be given a proper attention, satisfying your obvious need for it.

Best regards

Quote from: SteinerP on January 17, 2009, 01:41:48 PM
"...the rest of the crew at veljkomilkovic.com"
"...this is the way these people will "reason" about their experimentation and their device"

Instead of this kind of language (which obviously can augment the numbers of posts and receive a rank of hero member in quantity over quality), could you please focus solely on what is the topic instead of addressing people that you do not know and cannot by any means label as somebody's crew. Your expertise would than be more than appreciated and be given a proper attention, satisfying your obvious need for it.

Best regards

OK, you object to my characterization of the honored research team at Milkovic Laboratories as
"the crew" and as "those people".
And you ask me to stay on topic. Fine.
When I have suggested proper control experiments or ways to effectively utilize the output of the Milkovic system, I have been ignored. I figured this was because the scientists (and I do use that term advisedly) were dodging the issues, since these experiments and methods would ALMOST CERTAINLY (and I include the "almost" out of sheer politeness) reveal unequivocally that the system is far, far from OU and is in fact rather inefficient as an energy storage system.
So, instead of publishing pdf reports of "proof" experiments, let's see the proper performance of a "disproof" experiment, and when that experiment FAILS, let's start talking about staying on topic, again.

Quote from: SteinerP on January 17, 2009, 01:41:48 PM
"...the rest of the crew at veljkomilkovic.com"
"...this is the way these people will "reason" about their experimentation and their device"

Instead of this kind of language (which obviously can augment the numbers of posts and receive a rank of hero member in quantity over quality), could you please focus solely on what is the topic instead of addressing people that you do not know and cannot by any means label as somebody's crew. Your expertise would than be more than appreciated and be given a proper attention, satisfying your obvious need for it.

Best regards

And, Steiner, newbie, if you would care to look at my posts, you might actually learn something about the content of postings that go into making a poster's ratings what they are. Many people on this forum troll, criticise and sling mud without any evidence, good ideas, or contributions of their own. Perhaps I do not fall into this category.
Into which category will you fall, when you have accumulated enough posts to acquire some credibility? I suppose that is up to you.
You have not, however, gotten off to a good start.