Quote from: neptune on January 27, 2012, 07:00:13 AM
@Johnny874 .It is good to see that your recent posts have a bit more of a positive output . There may well be something about torque that we have all overlooked . However , if this is the case , people are unlikely to be convinced unless they see a physical model that demonstrates more output than input .By the way , you recently said that your OU research is a "coping mechanism ". That may well be true of us all to a greater or lesser extent . I have said that I feel I have proved , at least to myself , that the 2SO is not overunity ,.To try to convince others would be an uphill task . It is not what people , least of all Milkovic , would like to hear . It reminds me of the story of the Emperors new clothes . Nevertheless , I think Milkovic is " altogether as naked as the day that he was born ."

   Neptune,
The Emperor being naked was also used to describe the person that figured out Fractal Geometry. Fractal geometry has helped lead to advances in technology. When it was used to describe him, it was because they thought FG was a joke 
I think with me, my posting is about the same as ever. But do know what I will be pursuing and how. After I demonstrate what it is, successful or not, I might give this a shot to show how it could work. With machines, it's not always doing what you like but what the engineering allows. And I have found most often that people are resistant to change, but that is nothing new. It'll be about a month before I can get serious about what I'm doing. Until then, Happy Posting   

Veljko Milkovic - Two Stage Mechanical Oscillator - 3D stereoscopic simulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHngOhnbVo

Quote from: Merg on January 28, 2012, 03:08:28 PM
Veljko Milkovic - Two Stage Mechanical Oscillator - 3D stereoscopic simulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHngOhnbVo

Nice for the museum. But hasn't enough work been done to document this train of though?

the spring may be less inefficient in keeping the pendulum going. The way you guys like to measure output though, there will be less. The way I measure it, you have another version of a device built to reduce a pendulum's amplitude to zero, without any positive work having been done.


It is time for new attempts. This one didn't work.

Quote from: Cloxxki on January 28, 2012, 05:11:55 PM
Nice for the museum. But hasn't enough work been done to document this train of though?

the spring may be less inefficient in keeping the pendulum going. The way you guys like to measure output though, there will be less. The way I measure it, you have another version of a device built to reduce a pendulum's amplitude to zero, without any positive work having been done.


It is time for new attempts. This one didn't work.

  @All,
Since I have time while pursuing my build, I thought I would demonstrate some math that shows other possibilities.
I know Cloxxki is familiar with newtons of force. It might be helpful for anyone interested to become familiar with it as well. Basically, a weight has 9.8 newtons acting on it when it is at rest. Why it has weight or mass. When it is moving, 1kg moving at 1 meter a second has 1 newton of force.
This will help everyone to understand how potential energy might be realized in a pendulum.
If a 1kg weight is 1 meter from the fulcrum, this allows newtons and trigonometry to help show what potential there might be.
The attached drawing shows points A, B and C. A is the start of the swing, C  is bottom center of it's swing and B is a 5 degree lift.
When the pendulum swings 5 degrees of rotaion or 8.7cm's, a  lever that is 120 degrees will rotate upwards 8.7mm's. And this would happen with a drop of 4cm's.

What this allows for is a 1/2kg weight being lifted .87cm's. I know, it doesn't sound like much, does it ? What does need to be consider is that if a weight swings from A to C, what is it's velocity ? You see, at bottom center, a pendulum quits accelerating. And if the 1/2 kg weight has more force than a weight swinging from A to C, then it can accelerate it (possibly) and allow for the pendulum to swing high enough to return to it's start position and repeat the process. This is where math can predict the outcome before building. A build would only help to demonstrate and verify that the math has shown a potential source of free energy.
By the way, with a 1kg weight 50cm's from center line of the fulcrum, it could lift a maximum of 5 times it's weight. In reality, a 2 1/2 kg weight might be lifted to be stored energy for accelerating the pendulum. This would allow the pendulum to still be accelerating, even if under load.
If math shows the potential is real (this is where calculating all force in newtons allows for a single standard which allows for easy comparison), then the question would be how to allow the weight being lifted to accelerate a pendulum.
And the link is for an on line force conversion, might help.

http://www.onlineconversion.com/force.htm

edited to correct spelling 

   @All,
What might or might not matter is that gravity exerts 9.8 newtons on a weight.
By lifting a 1kg weight, it would have 9.8 newtons of force. And if the swinging
weight has and/or requires less force than 9.8 newtons, would it accelerate enough ?
Any way, something to think about. Also, in a TSMO, is it possible to have one
pendulum use leverage to accelerate the other ? Again, who knows. This of course
gets into engineering, but then again, we are talking about a machine, right ?
As for me, will probably do a slow build of what I've been doing.
One last thought, the yellow line is a center line. Leverage should be factored by
a weight's relationship to the center line. And by using 1kg @ 1 meter, it allows for esy
use of trigonometry and newton's (N = 1kg m/s^2).

                                                                                             Jim