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

[andrea]

Hi Andrea
Contrarily to the other paper that I had debunked (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Veljko_Milkovic_Kinetic_Energy_and_Overunity.pdf), this one has no math. It is just successions of fuzzy affirmations without any proof. Thus like Euclideas, we can easily dismiss it because "what is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".

Nevertheless here is a general consideration. Marjanovic bases his "theory" on the "idea of using
gravity shield for gravity energy extraction (if the shield was ever invented)." (sic).
It has already been proved by physicists that even if gravity was "shieldable", it would not lead to free energy or perpetual motion. The reason is obvious: the gravity flux is conservative. To understand it, we don't even need the proof from high level physicists by their flux-conservative formalism. Gravity force is a 1/r² force, like the electric force. The math which applies to the gravity force works also for the electric force, we have just to replace F=m*g by F=q*E and the masses by electric charges. The difference is that we can shield the electric field. So a perpetual motion based on Marjanovic's idea but using an electric field could be easily built: for example a vertical wheel charged on its circumference, above a static electric field which would be shielded under one half-side of the wheel. The wheel would be perpetually unbalanced, yet it doesn't work for the same reason the electric field is conservative as the gravity field (you can't switch off field lines, a shield only guides them).
Moreover OU is not demonstrated in Milkovic's pendulum. With an incredible "12 times more output than input" it would be very easy to loop it and make it self-sustainable. No one succeeded.
It follows that Marjanovic's "theory of gravity" is meaningless verbosity based on no fact.

Hello exnihiloest, I've read carefully your message. You say that in all this paper there is no math, and it's quite true, except for a formula. The author says : "Potential energy of the pendulum raised to height "h",  is m * g * h". Then, he focus on the pendulum raised to 90 degrees: "..pivot point O feels no force in position 1 or position 5. For it, it is the same as if pendulum lost its mass m or gravity acceleration g became zero". We can try it, this is easily verifiable. The result is that if we have a "g=0" effect, the other bob of the oscillator should fall to the ground. This is also easily verifiable. Have you seen this part of the paper?

So, what does it means? Please note that this isn't a proof of overunity , but it's a key to (maybe) understand the behavior of this machine. It's a new point of view, I think, and maybe if it would appropriately developed it could lead to something good.

About your statements on conservative fields, I don't have enough knowledge of electric field so I can't agree or disagree with those concepts. I just want to remember you that this part of forum is thought for people that hope that the gravity could be used positively, in the future. And they hope this thing well knowing that no one until today has extract anything from the conservative field of gravity. Ok?

BTW, I also think that this forum is a place in which people speak of overunity and the way of reach it. This could be a bit crazy, and maybe could not guide to anything, this is obvious. But all this people is doing it freely and with expense of their money, and above all they do it with no offense for anyone. I don't know if Marjanovic read this forum, but he is also studying this machine without remuneration. So, we can refute his theory, but we can't denigrate him. I really don't understand the users that denigrate, like you do in your posts. What is the meaning of your behavior? Just rudeness, I fear. 

[Omnibus]

And they hope this thing well knowing that no one until today has extract anything from the conservative field of gravity

With all due respect, that is not true. I have shown conclusively production of energy "out of nothing", that is, the possibility to have spontaneous displacement under the action of conservative forces. This is production of energy without depleting pre-existing energy sources.

Marjanovic may have something along these lines but at this point it isn't at all clear what his point is.

[Cloxxki]

With all due respect, that is not true. I have shown conclusively production of energy "out of nothing", that is, the possibility to have spontaneous displacement under the action of conservative forces. This is production of energy without depleting pre-existing energy sources.

Marjanovic may have something along these lines but at this point it isn't at all clear what his point is.

Only you are convinced of this.

What I seem to get, is that you calculated torque from a central axis, which I'm afraid is less relevant with the weight partically "off" the wheel, and the rest of the cycle the exle being partially disconnected as well.
If it's so sure there is OU, it's a matter of using some low friction material, building the darn thing, and placing it in a vacume chamber. Tap it, and it will spin right up.

[Omnibus]

Only you are convinced of this

Why are you saying this? You have admitted more than once that you are not quakified in these matters. What is this desire in people not versed in the matters at hand to express opinions? Maybe you somehow rise In your own eyes and feel important this way? I don't know, this has become an epidemic. The ease to type posts helps, I guess.

[spinn_MP]

Why are you saying this? You have admitted more than once that you are not quakified in these matters. What is this desire in people not versed in the matters at hand to express opinions? Maybe you somehow rise In your own eyes and feel important this way? I don't know, this has become an epidemic. The ease to type posts helps, I guess.

Eh, OmniBot...

You cannot help yourself, can you?

WHERE CAN WE SEE THAT PROOF OF YOURS(!!!), "that OU HAS BEEN SHOWN (by You, of course) CONCLUSIVELY, BEYOND ANY REASON OF A DOUBT..."

"By the way, OU isn't 2 + 2 = 5. That's a wrong understanding as to what OU is."

Lol.. Ah, maybe 1+1=3, or 1+2=4?
It's quite obvious that you don't know what you're talking about....

I think for some time now that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT "QUAKIFIED" for (actually,) anything...

If you'll not show that proof of yours (OU beyond any reason of a doubt..etc...), bear the consequences...

Btw, I would like to hear your description of what "OU" really means, in your opinion....