Quote from: Nabo00o on October 14, 2009, 01:38:48 PM

Are you saying that you made a chaotic pendulum, and then powered it with impulses from a solar panel?

Julian

yes I do and  I put it on this forumsome months ago ...
a dual pendulum with impulses from solar panel ( very cheap to do it )

But that's the problem, a chaotic pendulum and the milkovic oscillator are not the same.

Both I and many other (buliders as well), have said that movement of the pivot is what drains the pendulum. A chaotic pendulum as no restriction what-so-ever on the second pendulum's pivots movement. The two pendulums will then mix together with their combined potential and kinetic energies and end up without have done anything useful.

The power of the 2-stage oscillator is that it can do plentiful of work, with a lot of force, without being drained by the same negative work. This is because distance is the only sign of the equation which really affects it, minus all the other inefficiencies.

There is no force which pushes against the pendulum for every time it makes work (for example by pumping water, which has been done). There is only the movement of the pivot, and that can affect it negatively because of their parametric relationship. It is still however only distance and not force which slows it, so total work out does not need to be the same as total work in.
A similar situation is electric motors.

A motor only needs current to create a magnetic force, but to overcome the impedance of the coils voltage is also necessary, and the bigger the coils, the larger the voltage is needed.
But, if you insert capacitors into that relationship you have an RV's. And what are they doing?
They are balancing the inductance and the capacitance against each other, and in that way lowering the total voltage needed for a given current, increasing the total amount of work a certain input watt can do. Ideally, with a fine tuned resonance you could have powered a large many horsepower motor with only a few volts, but with large currents. The difference in watts out and in would then be enormous. A certain amount of skill and tools are needed to do that however, and I am in no way boasting my ability to carry out such an experiment.

But if you have read what I wrote just now (and that's a big IF ), then are you able to see the comparison between the resonant circuit in an RV and the pendulum in the Milkovic machine?
We only need to overcome the "inductive impedance" of the pendulum, by pushing it in its own natural resonance, and then it is only a matter of maintaining that kinetic energy, minus the small losses of a well built system.


Finally there are other ways of doing this which could work better, which could make it easier to a feedback system, but it is in no way impossible. It only requires a good system 

Julian

QuoteFinally there are other ways of doing this which could work better, which could make it easier to a feedback system, but it is in no way impossible. It only requires a good system

Ditto what he said.

Mount a 1lb. weight to the rim of a bicycle wheel, itself, mounted on a stand.  Set the apparatus on an accurate package scale.  Start by releasing the weight at apogee and measure the difference in weight between the apparatus at rest and at the weight's moment of perigree.

Nope, nothing to see here.....

I don't know why people don't grasp what Milkovic is trying to do.  He said it plainly in the above post.  The point of his design is not to let it ring down.  The idea is to use the initial stored energy from raising the weight to continually do work for you, over and over.  Because of friction and the moving pivot point, the energy tries to drain, so you need to replenish this energy to keep the pendulum going. 

It is an energy amplifier when looking at the replenishing energy verses the output energy.  When you do this you realize that inputting x to replenish the pendulum outputs n*x (where n is some amplification factor greater than 1 based on the the initial energy lifted, efficiency of design, etc.)  This is what he is meaning by over unity.  If however, you take into consideration the energy required to lift the pendulum, the efficiency calculation at first is much more crappy, well below 50%.  But as you use it, the efficiency grows because you only input that energy once.  After a few times the amount of output per cycle exceeds the replenishing energy and it should raise to some value.  I'm just repeating what I've grasped from Milkovic.  I don't fully believe or disbelieve anything yet - this is just my take on what he's trying to say.

Really the concept is very interesting - despite whether you can ever close the loop.  I think the best way to attempt closing the loop would be to convert the output to electricity (via a generator with ratchet and perhaps a fly wheel) then store the energy in a capacitor and discharge it through a coil when the pendulum is in the downward swing (to boost the pendulum) like those pendulum toys do. 

Even if that isn't the most "efficient", it would be easy.  And if there really is 12 times more output than input then being really inefficient would still land you somewhere within 3-6 times more output (still proving the point).  A good electric machine will be about 80% efficient.  If attached directly to a ratchet with flywheel (which can be another 80%) the system is 64%.  Storing in the capacitor and discharging would have very little loss, probably near 90% or better (more than likely better).  So the total now is ~57%.  This means if there is 12 times more output, going this route would give you ~6 times more output - and prove the point that it can self run. 

Quote from: Charlie_V on October 14, 2009, 11:21:11 PM
Even if that isn't the most "efficient", it would be easy.  And if there really is 12 times more output than input then being really inefficient would still land you somewhere within 3-6 times more output (still proving the point).  A good electric machine will be about 80% efficient.  If attached directly to a ratchet with flywheel (which can be another 80%) the system is 64%.  Storing in the capacitor and discharging would have very little loss, probably near 90% or better (more than likely better).  So the total now is ~57%.  This means if there is 12 times more output, going this route would give you ~6 times more output - and prove the point that it can self run.

30 years after his claim ...
still , we are waiting this elementary data ! so simple to do