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

[Cloxxki]

Ok Cloxxki, you said it many, many times. I think all the people in this forum understanded it: for you this machine is not OU. But, where's the problem if people reasons on 2SO again? If you look on the left of the page you could see this is a "overunity forum". Nothing wrong if in this place people talk about machines that could (or not) be overunity, I suppose...  Maybe it's you that are in the wrong place. 
Some considerations:
1) You speak about "fraud", well, remember that mr. Milkovic and mr. Marjanovic have never asked money or sold anything about the theory of 2SO. Do you know what it means to "respect" for those who put their own face in the game for free?
2) I have tried by myself to build this machine, starting in 2010. You could see my attempts in my youtube page, Babarlizia. Well, today (5-2-2012) I have not a response, I can't say if this machine is OU or not. I only know that it's very harder to build in all is parts, and I only know that if you have a pivot point's movement of ten or more cm the machine surely can't work. But it's very, very difficult reduce the displacement of this part.
3) A very interesting paper (distributed freely....) try to explain the maths of this machine. It doesn't say that this is always OU. It just assumes that the machine could be OU, given certain conditions. No one today has tried to realize a machine based on this formulas. Well, if you think that this is a very unprofessional claims, please read it and demonstrate that the formulas are wrong. Otherwise, please stop your posting "This is a unprofessional claim, this is a fraud, this is not OU". We all have understanded your concept, it's clear.

Ciao a tutti.

1) You don't need to ask money to make something a fraud. The motive of money can also be reached via a detour. If I would offer a service of keeping the world's foremost scientists busy to research claims of devices I'd device specifcally for that purpose, I would know where to look for buyers of my service. Don't dream that we live in a world where misinformation isn't worth money. Or at least accept that others will spot frauds where you see good humanity at work.


2) The numbers of centimeters doesn't matter. You can't loop it woith movement restricted to 0.1mm either. Less is returned that taken out. I think I saw your vid, but can't get it to show on my computer now. The 2SO is presented as a 12x OU device. Oh no, it's 3.75x now. But not even 1.01 can be shown. It's an unsubstantiated claim, and it doesn't deserve the attention of anyone with a workshop, let alone replication. The long-standing OU claim with more and more press brought out without solution, is VERY BAD.


3)
In their pretty document, they immediate use the word overunity just for a weight that moves lower due to the CF pull on it. As well-educated as they are with the device, that's borderline criminal. It undermines the whole FE community join and makes such rookie statements. The signing scientist, after contact with Neptune, now apparently says that likely there is no OU to be had, just maybe.
All the nice math is beyond me (I can disprove it decently with my own kindergarten math though), and my attention spam doesn't allow for pages full of empty words. This now doc shows much smaller claims than their early where, where they basically gave the reader a spoon to scoop up all the OU flowing off it.

[johnny874]

Ok Cloxxki, you said it many, many times. I think all the people in this forum understanded it: for you this machine is not OU. But, where's the problem if people reasons on 2SO again? If you look on the left of the page you could see this is a "overunity forum". Nothing wrong if in this place people talk about machines that could (or not) be overunity, I suppose...  Maybe it's you that are in the wrong place. 
Some considerations:
1) You speak about "fraud", well, remember that mr. Milkovic and mr. Marjanovic have never asked money or sold anything about the theory of 2SO. Do you know what it means to "respect" for those who put their own face in the game for free?
2) I have tried by myself to build this machine, starting in 2010. You could see my attempts in my youtube page, Babarlizia. Well, today (5-2-2012) I have not a response, I can't say if this machine is OU or not. I only know that it's very harder to build in all is parts, and I only know that if you have a pivot point's movement of ten or more cm the machine surely can't work. But it's very, very difficult reduce the displacement of this part.
3) A very interesting paper (distributed freely....) try to explain the maths of this machine. It doesn't say that this is always OU. It just assumes that the machine could be OU, given certain conditions. No one today has tried to realize a machine based on this formulas. Well, if you think that this is a very unprofessional claims, please read it and demonstrate that the formulas are wrong. Otherwise, please stop your posting "This is a unprofessional claim, this is a fraud, this is not OU". We all have understanded your concept, it's clear.

Ciao a tutti.

Je suis un Americain    Ja ne rooskie !

Seriously though, I think what the authors of the TSO considered as a possibility was with 12x the power (estimate?) that if someone of it could be returned to the system which is the feedback loop mentioned.
It would need to be considered how the 12x is aachieved. Between inertia and leverage, the pendulum's potential does increase. Leverage has always been considered as a 1:1 system.
What is left is if the inertia can be realized. I am not so sure of this. What helps his system to be efficient for it's original purpose is that when a pendulum changes direction, the weight has a minimal effect on the pendulum. And with a counter weight, it does making the pumping of water easier.
One possibility would be to see if by opening scissors from the side. By doing so, with 2 sections, the energy required to open them causing the lowest point to move upwards a greater distance might be possible. Scissors repeat a motion. It has not been tested to see if if effecting energy at 90 degrees is not possible. An immigrant named Nikola Tesla went against accepted engineering when he said that a dyno could run 90 degrees out of phase. Of course, everyone knows this is the basis of the a.c. generator. As such, all forms of energy generation and manipulation require systems. I am not sure of a singularity that in itself can generate energy. But energy conversion has been shown time and time again to be possible in many different ways. I am not sure why gravity should be any different.
And now I do need to return to Bessler. It was a magnificent machine that he did build 

[johnny874]

  @Andrea,
I diagrammed a single pendulum with one counter weight.
What I realized is that leveraging does allow for one possible way.
Another may be possible, but will consider this way first. The weights
will be given a mass of 1 kg for the purposes of analysis.
With both the counter weight and the fulcrum for the pendulum 1.3 meters
from the pivot point (A) of the lever, and with the weight of the pendul
1 meter from the center of it's fulcrum, I gave it a swing of 30 degrees to
each side for a total lateral movement of 1 meter.
When the weight of the pendulum swings towards it's counter weight, it is
then .8 meters from the point A. This would give the counter weight the extra
energy equal to 1kg @ .5 meters. How this could work is if the weight of the
pendulum were caught by something that is suspended from the lever above it.
This would change it's physical interaction within the system. When the lever
rotates in the direction of the counter weight (clockwise), the extra
energy could be used used to lift the weight of the pendulum. If the system performs
other work, then it is possible only a time delay might be suffered. Back to the
mechanics of the system.
When the lever rotates to it's stopping point, the weight of the fulcrum could be
released allowing it to swing freely. As we know, it will cause the lever to rotate in it's
direction (counter clockwise). If the lever is held in this rotated position, it would allow
I think a better chance of the mechanics working. This is because there would be 2
control points for shifting the lever and utilizing it's potential.

@Cloxxki, it has been realized that gravity can violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
In the U.S. space administration, they have used a principle discovered by a Russian scientist
who in the 1950's believed that a planet could accelerate another body. The deep space probes
use this principle to extend their lives and return more information of the outer reaches of our
solar system to scientists who might benefit from such information.

                                                                                                      Jim

[johnny874]

    correction;
If a weight is .8 meters from a pivot point and weighs 1 kg, then a weight @ 1.3 meters would have about 50% more force.
Also, if the lever rotates 15 degrees above and below a plane level with the pivot point, the weight of the pendulum would be lifted about .4 meters. This would increase it's potential.
Au revior 

[Merg]

related research

Libella With Inertial Propulsion Engine - Antigravity Effect - Stereoscopic format
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3dg47m94jg