How many of you have ever operated an overhead crane?
In order to stop the thing you are lifting from swinging around you move the point of lift directly over the location the item is swing to. That means you change the location of the axis of the swinging load. The change in the location of this device also changes the momentum of the swing with random either positive or negative results.

One swing may have more centripetal force while the next may have less.

Quote from: Nabo00o on January 20, 2009, 12:36:14 AM
Well yes. The timing is really the hard part, at least that's my view.

But the actual mechanics involved is really as simple as one could have wished for.

Btw, for any of you have built this thing, is it possible to use wood as the main hinge, or would that maybe be to weak?

Good quality wood or plywood is fine for the basic device, but the actual bearing should be steel. Try a replacement
router bearing:
http://www.axminster.co.uk/product-CMT-CMT-Router-Cutter-Bearings-20906.htm
or the pedal from a scrapped bicycle.
Paul.

Yes, I doubt the "12 times overunity" value, and I doubt the water pumps. However, as I have suggested before, the geometry of the machine would EASILY allow the output end to be hooked up to bicycle-style cylinder-piston air compression pumps, and the compressed air thus produced could be stored. And, the input end of the Milkovic device could EASILY be actuated by a compressed-air pneumatic cylinder. AND, the losses and energy balances in pneumatic systems are WELL-UNDERSTOOD. So a team of competent engineers and researchers should be able, in short order, to construct and perform experiments using this pneumatic system, to close the loop and have the thing run itself, since it is SO MUCH overunity, and losses in the pneumatic system would only be on the order of a few tens of percent.

Now, I will sit back and wait for the reports of this carefully done experiment, which could reasonably either falsify or support the Milkovic hypothesis.

I wager, however, that for one reason or another, this simple and to my mind conclusive experiment will NOT be performed--because I believe that the smart engineers and scientists on the Milkovic team know exactly how it would come out.

PROVE ME WRONG.
Please.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 19, 2009, 12:19:53 PM
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.

If you really had understood the meaning of my post, you would have reacted at least positively.
Instead, you continue with the way of communication which was the only reason for my addressing you.
I am in no way interested in making any kind of success in polemics making ego stronger, being in front of the screen putting people in categories and knowing nothing about them.
Obviously it makes you feeling good more than it does with really objective parts of your texts where one could think it is a person that strive to better understanding of issues he/she writes about. This contrast is what caught my eye. That is all, and there is neither any kind of start nor continuation of mastering the forum.

Best regards

Quote from: SteinerP on January 21, 2009, 08:00:33 AM

If you really had understood the meaning of my post, you would have reacted at least positively.
Instead, you continue with the way of communication which was the only reason for my addressing you.
I am in no way interested in making any kind of success in polemics making ego stronger, being in front of the screen putting people in categories and knowing nothing about them.
Obviously it makes you feeling good more than it does with really objective parts of your texts where one could think it is a person that strive to better understanding of issues he/she writes about. This contrast is what caught my eye. That is all, and there is neither any kind of start nor continuation of mastering the forum.

Best regards

As you can see from the post immediately above, I have proposed (and did so several times earlier) a simple and easy experiment that would conveniently test the hypothesis:
"The Milkovic oscillator described here will produce 12 times more power out, on a continuous bases, than it receives as input."
Now, whether you want to argue about communicative style or not, the fact remains: an experiment has been proposed which could conceivably falsify the Milkovic hypothesis.
Now, the onus is on the claimants to properly perform such an experiment. The experiment I have proposed is not problematic at all; any competent mechanic could design and implement the system with off-the-shelf components in a short time.
If the Milkovic system is even near a COP of 1, this experiment will show it. If the system really has 12x OU, it will easily run itself through my pneumatic pumps, accumulators and actuators.

So, attack my style if you like, I really don't mind. But the issue is still there, and I have proposed a method to resolve it. Why not try to build something, instead of getting all huffy because of a turn of phrase?
I know the answer: It is because it is far easier to complain and attack a person's words, than to address the ideas behind them.