12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

[iacob alex]

Hi Brian!If a simple experiment(   www.vernier.com/discussion/index.html?topic=54   )proves that ,if you intend to go swinging ,from a 90 degrees angle from the equilibrium position,you must make sure ,that the cable can withstand 3 times your weight,here we have a resembling case with Milkovic's  device,machine(12 times more output....).But,far-out,the difference is more provocative,interesting :an usual pendulum has a stable fulcrum(bearing,pivot),Milkovic's pendular lever has a swinging one.Here is the point:unlike trajectory of the bob.When you say trajectory,you say inertia.The "in-box" action for the bob,is the same(gravity pull or push...as you like).If the "out-box" reaction for the bob ( the same falling height) is different...here we have a problem to think about.The very small creatures,let's say insects,are "ignorant" about inertia ,but they are controlling masterly their  trajectory.Again, must we  go back to nature, for information?          All the Bests!/Alex

[supersam]

o.k. mramos,

gramatical point well taken.  i must ask however why we are all here if not for the possibility?

lol
sam

ps: two heads are still better than one.  imagine with ten.

[bsrinon]

Hi Alex,

Yes there is that added complexity when you're talking about pendulums with moving fulcrums. You're talking about a dynamic system within a dynamic system...hard to calculate, unless you use a computer to do the job like Dingus's Working Model. That is one expensive software!! Real nice though...I wish I had one to play with.

Brian

Hi Brian!If a simple experiment(   www.vernier.com/discussion/index.html?topic=54   )proves that ,if you intend to go swinging ,from a 90 degrees angle from the equilibrium position,you must make sure ,that the cable can withstand 3 times your weight,here we have a resembling case with Milkovic's  device,machine(12 times more output....).But,far-out,the difference is more provocative,interesting :an usual pendulum has a stable fulcrum(bearing,pivot),Milkovic's pendular lever has a swinging one.Here is the point:unlike trajectory of the bob.When you say trajectory,you say inertia.The "in-box" action for the bob,is the same(gravity pull or push...as you like).If the "out-box" reaction for the bob ( the same falling height) is different...here we have a problem to think about.The very small creatures,let's say insects,are "ignorant" about inertia ,but they are controlling masterly their  trajectory.Again, must we  go back to nature, for information?          All the Bests!/Alex

[bsrinon]

Sam,

That's a good option to start off with just for testing the concept. But later on when you need a bigger, heavier pendulum, we may need those extra extension with some metal tubing.  I'd like to get started right away, but this is final's week at the college.    I should be studying now...but this is too much fun.

Brian

hey brian,

if you find a cheap used bike that has front shocks, why not just throw out the spring, you now have two, remove your strut to hold the spring, and just drill a hole in your lever to accept a axel through the front fork and the lever arm.  does this not seem like the same thing?  maybe you need a block under the haqndle bars.  but maybe not.  but at least you will be getting closer to the possible crank at the axel of the lever.  so i would call this a move in the right direction.

lol
sam

[konduct]

Hey Brian. Great graphics and input. What school are you attending? 


~slightly edited~

Sam, I misunderstood you earlier on the lever strokes.  For each pendulum swing, there are two "work" duty cycles by the lever and one "reset" cycle (at the bottom of the pendulum swing.)  If you restrict or tap the reset cycle too much, it will be limiting the next work cycle's distance and counteract the 12:1 ratio. (Taking away from input power will drastically reduce your output when it is at 12:1!) On the other hand, the lever has to stay within a certain angle on each stroke to maintain a good rhythm so there is some energy to "catch" at the end of the reset stroke.  In addition, reading some earlier post on tension as well as my own research, I believe that the pendulum has nearly twice as much power needed to reset the hammer IF the pendulum is heavy enough to balance the lever at rest. 

If the lever is balanced so that the pendulum is up in the air at rest, than there would be little energy left over for any work on the reset cycle.  If the pendulum is "heavy" and the hammer is in the air at rest, then you are directly diminishing the leverage of your hammer since the pendulum already has a weight advantage.  I think the balanced at rest setup is the easier to work with. 

If we could temorarily store the excess energy when the pendulum is at the bottom of its swing, and return nearly that same amount as it comes back down, WE'LL BE IN BUSINESS!

The power of a device like this comes from the weight on the "hammer" end of the lever interacting with gravity.  All the pendulum does is use its natural potential to kinetic energy cycle to offset the weight of the "hammer".  We need the hammer to go up to come down.  The actual "work" is being done by gravity on the hammer so to restrict anything that gets the hammer back in the air seems counterproductive to this particular setup.    When I said the machine works better under load, it is only on the work cycle...HOWEVER......If we were to use some 1 inch neos (included in the design as "work" weight.) and pump those puppies through some coils on the up and down strokes...I think the inductive coil forces would be negligible to the "reset" cycle and would make use of the back and forth nature of the machine to assist in powering some solenoids.

Make sense?