BRAZIL - Company is building a Gravity Generator http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

[Red_Sunset]

.............................................................
Tesla claims a magnifying effect due to the use of two coils. I would guess that his claim is the magnification of energy.
..............................................................
Bluntly speaking, I can't see any reason why someone should falsely claim overunity ............................ Fake? Mistake? I don't think so.
..................................................................
The pendulum swings like an ordinary pendulum, the lever (the second stage) is connected to gravity. Now an electric oscillator also oscillates just like an ordinary oscillator, but the second coil (the second stage) is connected to ... what? Some sort of an electric field that surrounds us?
.........................................................
Tesla: Could we produce artificially a »sink« for the energy of the ambient medium to flow in?

.................................................................
If done the right way, this should also work with an electric field representing Tesla's ambient medium.

BTW:
Any confirmation of this, or pure guesswork? .........................................

Zeit,

Thx for clarifying your angle.  I am not in any position to tell you right or wrong,  you can read and must have seen the many attempts throughout history to achieve this illusive objective. The corridor gets longer and more doors to open come into view..

Your focus is on oscillation and in particular the 2 stages osc. As I gather the understanding of this logic is that stage1 is the initiator and stage2 is the deliverer.

Storyline:  Stage1 requires input to initiate a change,  resulting in a impulse of change for stage2.  The reaction by stage2 is not fueled by energy extraction from stage1, this energy is supposed to come from an other source.  The constraint is that the resulting energy out should be bigger than the input delivered to stage1 if you desire OU..

Perceptions can be deceiving, therefore they don't count. Identification of stage2 energy source is important, even if it is described by resulting observations.  This provides a better understanding of what is important.
Example (my view and debatable), the Tesla magnifying transmitter. 
I do not believe there is any free energy in this tesla oscillator device itself.  It only magnifies tension within standard known boundaries.
I think that the objective was to harvest atmospheric energy that could be derived from the transmission medium of a long distance implementation.  The tesla coil setup functions as a tickler to the static atmospheric energy medium to initiate vibration motion ,.   Once in motion, energy can be extracted.(Energy (force (charge) x distance (motion)).  The Tesla primary energy source would be the ionosphere charged by the sun in solar winds hitting the earth.  So to see the excess energy, we need to see the whole full dimension.

That dual oscillators could possible tap other energy sources, quite possible but to say that with assuredness, more observed evidential information would be needed.

That the Dual Osc is within itself OU capable,  always possible although that would require more convincing evidence from my viewpoint.

This is not a "No", it should be an encouragement that there should be a separation between guesswork, wishful thinking, assumptions and hard evidence. Don't mix.

Regards, Red-Sunset

[Zeitmaschine]

Your focus is on oscillation and in particular the 2 stages osc. As I gather the understanding of this logic is that stage1 is the initiator and stage2 is the deliverer.

It seems so indeed. Thus, what do you think why are all hints (electric and mechanic) pointing to a two-stage oscillator? Isn't that curious?

Here it comes one more curious coincidence.

Why is this arrangement not working: Milkovic Pendulum and Rotation? It does not work because the lever of that replication is linked to a flywheel, hence the lever moves along a smooth sinusoidal path. However, the lever of the original Milkovic two-stage oscillator makes jerky (sharp) movements.

Quote: »Most important thing is to generate sharp pulses (triggered)« That's a hint from cosmoLV, one who allegedly knows (but is unwilling to reveal) the principle of work of the Kapanadze device.

Considering the lever and the pendulum: A pendulum converts energy constantly back and forth between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. Now, how should the mechanic two-stage oscillator work in the IDEAL case?

1) When the pendulum is in the horizontal position all energy is converted to potential energy, then the gravitation suddenly moves up the pivot. That means, since all energy is stored in the pendulum's bob in form of potential energy, the pendulum can't lose any energy at that point due to the pivot's up movement.

2) When the pendulum is in the vertical position all energy is converted to kinetic energy, then the gravitation suddenly moves down the pivot. That means, since all energy is stored in the pendulum's bob in form of kinetic energy, the pendulum can't lose any energy at that point due to the pivot's down movement.

So then, where is the energy coming from that moves the lever up and down? Gravity? Seems there is nothing else left.

On the other hand, if the pivot moves during the energy conversion, then that movement will interfere with it, resulting in a energy loss of the pendulum.

Therefore my (electric) problem is, how to generate sharp pulses by means of two connected LC circuits (without semiconductor or spark gap)? Driving the iron core of the second stage into saturation perhaps?

And I'm still convinced when I'm looking at the Milkovic two-state oscillator, then I'm looking at the mechanic version of the electric Tesla/Kapanadze/Stepanov two-stage oscillators.

[Red_Sunset]

It seems so indeed. Thus, what do you think why are all hints (electric and mechanic) pointing to a two-stage oscillator? Isn't that curious?
Here it comes one more curious coincidence.
.......................................................
..........................................

Zeit,
I had my reservations on the accuracy of certain statements, and it became clear I overlooked something that gives your view more support. I needed to find some time to get it down on paper

So allow my mind to some logical and illogical musings,  I am open to different views
The bending of the bar is due to a greater force than just blob weight as thought initially .   The bending force is the result of the centrifugal force, in direct relationship to the blobs weight and its cord length .

So exactly where does the excess energy enter the picture and what energy is it
.
      *Zeit*  1) When the pendulum is in the horizontal position all energy is converted to potential energy, then the gravitation suddenly moves up the pivot. That means, since all energy is stored in the pendulum's bob in form of potential energy, the pendulum can't lose any energy at that point due to the pivot's up movement.

Comment;  The pivot movement influence on the blob and its new position when in the horizontal position with pivot
When the pivot moves upward when the swing reaches its maximum apex, the result must be a composite repositioning of the blob in 2 dimensions towards the pivot location.  We can assume a cord angle away from the horizontal and a inward but slightly higher positioned blob. 
-  Potential energy adjustment impact on the blob is factional small.
-  When the blob reaches its apex, the acceleration and gravity forces balance out and result in an apparent weightless condition.
-  Centrifugal / centripetal forces become zero.
-  Energy to move pivot upward is ~ zero (relatively speaking)

       *Zeit* 2) When the pendulum is in the vertical position all energy is converted to kinetic energy, then the gravitation suddenly moves down the pivot. That means, since all energy is stored in the pendulum's bob in form of kinetic energy, the pendulum can't lose any energy at that point due to the pivot's down movement.

Comment: As the blob descend towards the lowest potential energy level, the centrifugal force increases due to acceleration.  At a determined vertical point, the centrifugal force exceeds the centripetal holding force of the pivot. The pivot drops a preset distance.
As the centripetal force is interrupted, we have a vertical centrifugal force, combined with the horizontal acceleration force, results in a angled force trajectory for the blob which is arrested when the down pivot point is reached and centripetal is reinstated.
-  The blob trajectory change means that the path followed by the blob is longer than its regular swing trajectory?.
-  The blob would experience a temporary acceleration during the pivot drop that possibly could compensate for the longer path ?
-  A pivot drop at the vertical will not add to energies that aid blob acceleration motion
-  Energy exerted on the moving pivot (centrifugal force x pivot drop distance)

* Total potential energy as seen by the pendulum,  total height travel – pivot drop distance = pendulum cord length (height).
* Pivot up restore energy :  ~ zero (relative zero)
* Pivot down drop energy :  Centrifugal/ Centripetal force (not gravity directly, a derivative thereof)

Where did this excess energy come from:  centrifugal is a fictitious force but centripetal isn't
Centripetal force = mass x velocity2 / radius :  The velocity of the blob has the most impact on the pivot force. (so critical to observe is possible reduction to velocity)
The centrifugal force had to overcome the centripetal threshold of the pivot,  energy is deposited into the pivot attachment as force x distance. To simplify your argument, we could assume that all energy due to pivot drop is invested therein from the centrifugal/centripetal force. 

Any comments......

Red_Sunset

[Red_Sunset]

Addon,

The question on and how the feedback (the one we can not ignore) is regulated in the pendulum where the pivot drops.
This feedback is not so obvious and can better be described by looking at an analogous device with similar properties.
It is most unlikely that the process of transferring energy to the pivot is for free,

As the pendulum blob moves through its vertical at highest velocity and displaces its pivot, it is momentary alike to a motor with a eccentric weight. The vibration motor.
Some useful data can be found here:  http://www.precisionmicrodrives.com/application-notes-technical-guides/application-bulletins/ab-004-understanding-erm-characteristics-for-vibration-applications

Some text from the linked document describing the vibration loading (the Eccentric Rotating Mass vibration motor, or ERM)
//   As the applied voltage is increased, the vibration frequency increases proportionally, and vibration amplitude will all increase as with a square; remember that "F0", the amplitude of the centrifugal force, equals equation mrw(sq2). The ERM current is proportional to the torque 'load' seen by the motor. As vibration energy is taken out of the ERM system, the torque required to continue spinning the eccentric mass will increase, and so too will the current.
This explains why the current draw of a loosely held vibration motor is greater than the current draw when the same motor is clamped tightly. In the latter case, less vibration energy is being removed from the ERM system.  //

Vibration load is nothing more than the pivot (shaft) taking an off center path, similar than the bending pivot.  Only imagine the pendulum to rotate 360 dgr, the offset pivot will do the same.

It is not clear how exactly the loading takes place (how it transferred), it can only by impacting the rotation speed of the motor and result in increased current,  this would equal the pendulum blob velocity.  The blob would more rapidly come to a stop !.
So the pivot dropping must impact the velocity, contrary to earlier reasoning
Something to focus on.

Red_Sunset

[Zeitmaschine]

The centrifugal force had to overcome the centripetal threshold of the pivot, energy is deposited into the pivot attachment as force x distance. To simplify your argument, we could assume that all energy due to pivot drop is invested therein from the centrifugal/centripetal force.

In my understanding the weight of the pendulum should be enough to move the pivot downwards. I'm not sure if centrifugal force is necessary. The weight of the pendulum is zero on its horizontal position and back to normal (plus centrifugal force) on its vertical position. Zero weight moves the pivot up because of the lever's overbalance on its opposite side. The pendulum's normal weight moves the lever down because the lever's overbalance is now on the pendulum's side. So it is beneficial to have a centrifugal force in addition to the pendulum's weight, but it is not required in order to get the movement of the lever.

Vibration load is nothing more than the pivot (shaft) taking an off center path, similar than the bending pivot. Only imagine the pendulum to rotate 360 dgr, the offset pivot will do the same.

It is not clear how exactly the loading takes place (how it transferred), it can only by impacting the rotation speed of the motor and result in increased current, this would equal the pendulum blob velocity. The blob would more rapidly come to a stop !.
So the pivot dropping must impact the velocity, contrary to earlier reasoning
Something to focus on.

I think the overlooked point here is the abruptness of the pivot's movement. A motor with an eccentric weight performs a linear function (like the wooden flywheel in the image above). The Milkovic two-state oscillator does not. The pendulum and the lever are nonlinear in their interaction. The pendulum's sinusoidal movement results in a binary on-off state, the lever goes abruptly up or down. Practically that should make a huge difference. The pendulum converts energy loss-less between potential and kinetic energy (disregarding friction). When that conversion is completed during each cycle (in horizontal and vertical position) then a movement of the pivot at that time should not take any energy out of the pendulum.

Of course, when we want to excite a pendulum parametrically then the usual way to do this is to move the bob (not the pivot!) up a bit (not down) when it swings through its vertical position. We shorten the string at vertical and we extend the string at horizontal in order to excite the pendulum. That would suggest at first glance that moving down the pivot at vertical would dampen the pendulum (contrary to exciting it). But moving the pivot is completely different from moving just the bob up and down, because shorten the string in vertical position and extending it in horizontal position (for parametric excitation) means the bob moves along a smaller radius the complete way till it reaches its horizontal position and it moves along a larger radius the complete way till it swings back to its vertical position. Whereas a movement of the pivot (during bob's vertical or horizontal position only) does not change the radius of the bob's path when the conversion of energy takes place.

Conclusion: Changing the length of the string does change the radius of the bob's path, hence changing the bob's velocity, hence exciting or damping the pendulum respectively. Changing the vertical position of the pivot does not change the radius of the bob's path, hence not changing the bob's velocity, hence not exciting or damping the pendulum respectively.

Seems that matter becomes more and more complicated as we look deeper and deeper into it.