Hey all,

my questions are  - Whether this expertise is final proof of over unity? Or all should be reviewed?
Is your silence a sign of approval?

Ok... Here's what I see happening with the Milkovic device.

Quite simply a lever with equal length sides will exert a force on the output side equal to that applied on the input side. Everybody knows that! Now imagine this for a moment... attach a steel ball of ten pounds to one side of the lever with, lets say a piece of aircraft cable with a ten thousand pound rating. Drop that weight from a height that will allow it to reach terminal velocity. When the weight brings the cable tight it pulls the pendulum down. The force due to acceleration is greater than simply what would be ten pounds of force. Now since the Milkovic device is using a rigid member and not a cable. Some of the energy from the falling mass is lost because it's rate of decent diminishes due to the the fact that it begins to rotate on it's axis.

The energy from the impact is there, we just don't observe it as a collision. It is what is known as an "inelastic collision". Ramond Head shows in a video, that with a lever in a 3.4 to one ratio and the long side being the work side, that the Milkovic device is still able to lift more on the long side than what is inputted on the short side. This is in contrast to the way a lever should work. It should actually output less.

The reason as I see it is because the force of ten pounds acting on a lever is additive with the force of the impact collision that we never really notice but is there. Without getting too crazy with a bunch of numbers, Imagine all the forces as static just for a moment.

Ten pounds of static force plus the force of the inelastic collision, minus the losses of the inelastic collision due to diminishment from the rotation of the pendulum's column is greater than ten pounds of static force.

This is why this device behaves the way it does as Raymond Head has showed. This device will self run as I see it with the proper mechanical configuration. Someone just needs to figure out how and I think I have it figured out as you will all soon see.

Head has done very much. And it should be valued.
We shouldnt forget physicist  Berett who in his book Energy Abundance wrote about positive results:
http://books.google.com/books?id=co13IL87yXMC&q=veljko+milkovic#v=onepage&q=Veljko%20Milkovic&f=false
Mr. Barrett writes about Veljko Milkovic pump with a pendulum.
You can read and the scientific and expert opinions and analyses on inventions and research, which Veljko Milkovic received in a written form during previous years...

Peter Lindemann, D.Sc.
"...This certainly ranks as one of the most important discoveries in science in the last 300 years... more "

prof. dr. Velimir Abramovic
"...The double oscillator is also the best mechanical analogy of the alternating current, even better than Tesla's analogy... more "

academician prof. dr. Bratislav Tosic
"...It is estimated that the input of gravity in the performance of biphase oscillator is around 80%...

And...
Branislav Serdar, Jovan Marjanovic, Prof. Nebojsa Simin, Ronald Pugh, Colin Gauld,...

...latest from veljkomilkovic.com:

Towards the Birthday of Nikola Tesla

Tesla's Vision about Gravitational Machine Has Benn Accomplished

Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) has published a philosophical paper titled as “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy“ in “The Century“ journal  at year 1900.
Many could be surprised by a vision presented by Tesla, in the last paragraph in page 56, which ended in the first half of page 57 in the book:

It is possible, and even probable, that there will be, in time, other resources of energy opened up, of which we have no knowledge now. We may even find ways of applying forces such as magnetism or gravity for driving machinery without using any other means. Such realizations, though highly improbable, are not impossible. An example will best convey an idea of what we can hope to attain and what we can never attain. Imagine a disk of some homogeneous material turned perfectly true and arranged to turn in frictionless bearings on a horizontal shaft above the ground. This disk, being under the above conditions perfectly balanced, would rest in any position. Now, it is possible that we may learn how to make such a disk rotate continuously and perform work by the force of gravity without any further effort on our part; but it is perfectly impossible for the disk to turn and to do work without any force from the outside. If it could do so, it would be what is designated scientifically as a "perpetuum mobile," a machine creating its own motive power. To make the disk rotate by the force of gravity we have only to invent a screen against this force. By such a screen we could prevent this force from acting on one half of the disk, and the rotation of the latter would follow. At least, we cannot deny such a possibility until we know exactly the nature of the force of gravity. Suppose that this force were due to a movement comparable to that of a stream of air passing from above toward the center of the earth. The effect of such a stream upon both halves of the disk would be equal, and the latter would not rotate ordinarily; but if one half should be guarded by a plate arresting the movement, then it would turn.

However, almost 100 years after the above paper was published, many surprises were happening and many replicas and analysis were made in the world about gravitational machine with a driving pendulum!

more:

academician Veljko Milkovic - Tesla's Vision about Gravitational Machine Has Benn Accomplished
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Veljko_Milkovic_Tesla_vision_about_gravitational_machine.pdf

Hi all!
It would be interesting to examine whether the pendulum is more effective than the wheel, as stated in the previous paper?