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

[Cloxxki]

@gdez, tell me what type of test you want to do, or which medium or technique to use. I am all for anti-bling and no-cost builds.
I would suggest, if you don't fear elaborate theory or measurement, to build a super basic 2SO. Just the beam and a pendulum on one end, a rope will do. Typical Malcovic propotions. Place a quick scale with sensitive needle or LCD refresh under the CW. A cheap or stury one, as it will also be a hammer plate. A sensitive fish scale als rope for the pendulum could also prove useful. Offer numbers Malkovic doesn't want to get specific on. I am claiming the pendulum is performing hardly any work at all. To get that CW in the air takes almost nothing. Most of the weight required is already handing there when still, and the leverage from the crossbeam does the rest. Throwing oscillation in the mix, and removing the hammer plate, amplitude will be double, half of which is negative amplitude.


@Jim
You've got your forces, velocities and accelerations SO out of wack and twisted up, I am in fact at a loss as to how to explain it. You seem to be missing that acceleration is expressed as m/s² simply because every second, a number of m/s (3.6 kph) is added to its previous velocity. 1m/s² mean every second 1m/s is added.


A page back I explained how to see the acceleration view off centrifugal force, and I do think I got that decently right, for someone to think about it the ffirst time in his life (me).
In the 2SO, it's used as a vertical accceleration. One moment you're in a nose dive, the other you're pulling up. You vertical velocity goes from negative to positive, and it can be expressed as vertical acceleration. There is however no acceleration relative to the axis, unless the rope extends under the strain.

[Cloxxki]

About earth's spin once more.


I challenge anyone to tell me what happens if a rocket were to make a loop with r=6000km (use actual earth's radium) and complete it in one hour.
A scale with a 1kg weight is on board, hanging from a rope to self-align it with the CF should it occur.
Now, what will the scale register?


And why does this value not exist as the difference (converted to m/s²) between gravity at the equator and poles?


Actually, hollow earth is one possible explanation. More mass at the poles, more genuine pull-gravity generated, exactly negating the spin. I will also bet (having though about it as long as itt takes to type this) that a Phun-like simulation will prove me correct. It would need to be fed with laws of gravity as currently considered to be true. Hollow earth solves it. It may even explain the tides.


More on topic, who would be prepared to call the most basic 2SO dimensional relationships as claimed to be OU? I might be bothered to let my Cloxxki-logic loose on it, and predict some measurable figures. I want the 2SO off the game pitch, and a new inventtion on it!

[johnny874]

@gdez, tell me what type of test you want to do, or which medium or technique to use. I am all for anti-bling and no-cost builds.
I would suggest, if you don't fear elaborate theory or measurement, to build a super basic 2SO. Just the beam and a pendulum on one end, a rope will do. Typical Malcovic propotions. Place a quick scale with sensitive needle or LCD refresh under the CW. A cheap or stury one, as it will also be a hammer plate. A sensitive fish scale als rope for the pendulum could also prove useful. Offer numbers Malkovic doesn't want to get specific on. I am claiming the pendulum is performing hardly any work at all. To get that CW in the air takes almost nothing. Most of the weight required is already handing there when still, and the leverage from the crossbeam does the rest. Throwing oscillation in the mix, and removing the hammer plate, amplitude will be double, half of which is negative amplitude.


@Jim
You've got your forces, velocities and accelerations SO out of wack and twisted up, I am in fact at a loss as to how to explain it. You seem to be missing that acceleration is expressed as m/s² simply because every second, a number of m/s (3.6 kph) is added to its previous velocity. 1m/s² mean every second 1m/s is added.


A page back I explained how to see the acceleration view off centrifugal force, and I do think I got that decently right, for someone to think about it the ffirst time in his life (me).
In the 2SO, it's used as a vertical accceleration. One moment you're in a nose dive, the other you're pulling up. You vertical velocity goes from negative to positive, and it can be expressed as vertical acceleration. There is however no acceleration relative to the axis, unless the rope extends under the strain.

   Cloxxki, the links are for you. Gravity accelerates at a rate of 9.87m/s/s
and with Newton, I think it was f=ma which a is the acceleration of gravity as measured vt. Haven't been able to find it clearly stated but have always heard m/s/s which means that every second an object falls, it's velocity increases by 9.8m/s.
I'm glad you think I'm messed up. At least one of us went to school for engineering 
Probably why posting in a forum IS a waste of my time. Haven't met the person yet that can follow lines of force. And with a gravity wheel, doubt it would move faster than gravity would allow it to. And since 9.8 is mentioned in the links, why did you use a different refernce for ? To confuse the issue ? What I mentioned was 1 second of gravity acting on a wheel with no resistence. Doesn't matter, I'm about the only person who builds anyway. You should try it someday before running your mouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity

edited to add; gdez, Segway spent $800 million I think it was making their gyro's effcient enough to power their 2 wheeler. Good Luck

[gdez]

@clokki and johnny,
Please remember that our own personal goals may be different. When I first got into the free energy idea, It was all about how to buy a peice of property out in the middle of nowhere, and basiclly live off grid. I found that not to many energy solutions provide the means, depending on what your looking for. Through my research I stumbled onto hho stuff, and i have been hooked ever since. I built a fuel cell, but never actually completed it because i felt it was too complicated for someone without lots of tools and acsess to materials. I have also built parabolic reflectors, and have materials for a wood gasifier and bio degester. Time is what is hard. Jetsis "plastic to deisel project is also fantastic, and the algae biodeisel is also interesting. I am starting to see that a combination of solutions may be the key. I would like you all to look at my "w17 working much better" video and try to envision where I am going with my projects. My w17 model was a great sucsess for me because it did what I wanted it to do. Steady beat, somewhat smooth power. I did not get the pendulum swing I wanted, but that seems like a minor obstacle. At my  job, I lift piping assemblies that weigh several thousand pounds into place with easily, with chainfalls, all the time , and putting block and tackle to a tsmo style device just seems to work for me. If I could go out every morning and raise 2000+ lbs to supply all my energy needs for the day, it would be a pleasure. Especially for pumping water because I live on a 100ft hill, and I feel i could harness the water in many ways, just using gravity. AS for my pump idea, I think that I would like to aim for pumping water at least eighty feet. And @ clokki, I think I will try 18" dia pipe, 4" deep, 1/4" neoprene as diaphragm,2" inlet 3/4 outlet". Diaprhragm will be held by a pipe flange type connection, unsure of springs. Springs are confusing to me, but they seem to be very important in  many of my models, and deserve a closer look.

[Cloxxki]

@Jim
Glad to hear you did get your money's worth at engineering school. At times engineers can be so much into the tech, that language gets disconnected. I usually understand technical English decently, but yor sentence building just seems incompatible with my reading ability.

@gdez:
I would like to have appartments in a tall building, top floor and bottom floor. Let's say 50m vertical difference. I'd obviously only get a water connection on the top floor, run piping along the side of the building. One insulated from sun, one absorbing as much sun and heat as possible. Both would produce huge pressure going into my ground floor appt, and run through a turbine before being put to use. I like some decent shower pressure, but 50m extra worth may be a bit much even for me. The heat absorbing piping might over that height (and possible zig-zags to add distance and thus time exposed) might prove to be enough for a 38ºC shower. Hey, I just invented flat piping to increase energy absorbtion. Oh, and when looped over the side of the building, heated water could serve to heat the inside of the appt. Every cm² of building face not being used to absorb heat into flowing water, is free energy being wasted. Like using your heater and try to make the outside weather warmer.
I don't anything about pumps, would be interested to know why you'd want to pump water, but that's another thread entirely.

I think I might crack down and start breaking up the 2SO into Cloxxki math. It would take a scientist (or 18 y/o student) to make it publishable.