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

[johnny874]

This seems to be my own private thread at the moment! No workshop time today . However I have been doing some serious thinking about the 2SO . I am a bit disappointed that I have been unable to prove OU  up to now .There can only be two possible reasons for this . Either no one has built an OU 2SO , or my particular 2SO is not OU. Looking again at the work and videos of Raymond Head [rhead100 ] his demonstrations seem to show OU . However he , like Milkovic has no perfect way to measure input . The Milkovic fish scale method is inacurate , and his demo with the lever operated torch [hand lamp] is to me open to deception because one can continue to push the pendulum with the torch after its lever has completed its travel .
     To measure the input continuously when the pendulum is pushed by hand every cycle . I suggest two methods .
1 . Tape a load cell to the palm of your hand , and monitor its output on
a computer.By logging pressure and duration we can compute input energy for each stroke .
2 . Instead of pushing it with the hand , push it with a lever . The lever is operated by a falling weight , and is reset by hand after each stroke . The distance the weight can fall is adjusted so it just maintains the pendulum amplitude . With this low tech method we know the exact input at each stroke .
          For a mechanical device to be looped , it needs to be at least 2 times OU to compensate for losses .If it is only , say one and a half times , it could still have its uses , in muscle powered  devices .
  Accurate measurement is the key , gut feelings are unreliable . we can fall into what I call the bicycle syndrome . It is a proven fact , that if you walk a mile , you can cycle 3 miles for the same amount of energy . This does not mean the a bike is 3 times OU , it just means that walking is a relatively inefficient way to travel .
         There is always the possibility that my method of measuring the input energy for just one swing of the pendulum is in some way flawed , but at this stage , I can not see how . I would appreciate opinions from everyone .

   Neptune,
When I first tried something with OU in mind, I started with conservation of momentum.
When momentum is conserved, it can then be converted into what ever it is you want.
With a pendulum, one reason why they are so efficient is that their travel is mostly east-west. By this, I mean left to right, little lift or drop. This allows a little energy to allow for more motion.
One thing I have always felt is that a 2OS is avoiding the real issue. A single pendulum should be able to work. With what Tom thought of, the pendulums grates potential (when the bob is at it's highest point( can be used to lift another weight that would not have to fight inertia. And for any OU device, something obvious should be noticed. With scissors, it is obvious. A weight can travel a greater distance than the work put into it.
And if that doesn't work, then it would be known. And I think when it comes to swinging weights or even rotating ones for that matter, people have a tendency to ignore how much inertia is developed. It is equal to f=ma. This means any time a weight swings or drops to rotate, it's inertia is equal to it's potential. This is where a secondary system can break that cycle. it can convert f=ma (force equals mass times acceleration) to w=md (work equals mass times distance). And this would give it a chance.

                                                                                                                                Jim

edited to add; with what I am building, when a lever swings, it performs work. with a pendulum, some of the energy would need to be directed back into the system but is possible.

[icanbeatbob]

Neptune,

Don't know if this has been though of before, but here is my idea. When the pendulum is at it's lowest point, it exerts it's greatest force downward against the pivot point, which is lost energy.

What if the weight pulling down was pulling down on a leverage point instead?

Brad

[Cloxxki]

Allowing the weight to dip say 1cm lower will also take always from it's required next upswing.
And you can't take out extra CF by leveraging the extraction, as that would just slow down the weight even more, it will lift back to regular dead bottom and lay still there.

There is no energy without vertical work, and the weight can't to more work than its loss in height unless it's slowed down.
Laws of nature will not be rewritten to make the 2SO overunity.

[fishman]

@Cloxxki,
   
"Laws of nature will not be rewritten to make the 2SO overunity"

The Laws of nature do not have to be rewritten to make the 2SO overunity. Your understanding of the laws of nature will.

[icanbeatbob]

Understood. I am sure you guys know more about this than I do. It was just a thought.

I was thinking that the string would be taught, so when at the bottom, it would not travel down any substantial distance to lose energy for the upswing. Just goes to show you how much I know.

Anyway, I should have tried it myself first. Thanks for the information guys.

Brad