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

[PaoloGigli]

According to video clips and simulations the movement of lever in system lever/pendulum is "peculiar".

Playing with pendulum I realize that vertical movement of pivot in a certain way could make a swing of pendulum constant. This means that moving of opposite side of a lever in a certain way could make a swing of pendulum constant. This is not happened because moving of pendulum side is not strictly vertical but circular adding horizontal force to pendulum.

Out there is a number of experimenters who could add pivot movement constrain to his construction making it move strictly up and down. This extra part will add some loss to machine but lever will swing more stable than without. This constrain will remove the need for moving limiters meaning that all energy in disposal could be used by working machine (pump) without wasting it by pushing limiters 

Further thinking in the direction leads me to the conclusion that ideal working machine will be one having working cycle which support proposed movement of pendulum pivot.

Which machine it could be?

[PaoloGigli]

Further thinking in the direction leads me to the conclusion that ideal working machine will be one having working cycle which support proposed movement of pendulum pivot.

Which machine it could be?

Suppose that we have found such a machine

It still does not mean that the system, TSMO & wonder machine, could work without adding energy
but then it would be necessary to add the least amount of energy to sustain endless work (if we need it)

[gdez]

@ Paologigli,
Good observations, except that you can not use the lever end output  to manipulate the pivot point. The output from the lever end needs to push the pendulum only, at least from my observations. Otherwise you are not really isolating the pendulum from the lever( which is what milkovics theory is all about.) Milkovics idea is that the pendulum moves independent of the lever.
I may not be seeing something that you are thinking, but if you show me a drawing of what you are thinking, I would be happy to give you some suggestions.
I am in the process of building a new frame for a tsmo, and hopefully will have it completed soon.
@all,
While I am in the process of building my new model I would like to hear anybody's suggestions. I am working on an idea for  a water and/ or steam actuated device, but, all suggestions will be taken.
Gdez

[PaoloGigli]

@ Paologigli,
Good observations, except that you can not use the lever end output  to manipulate the pivot point. The output from the lever end needs to push the pendulum only, at least from my observations. Otherwise you are not really isolating the pendulum from the lever( which is what milkovics theory is all about.) Milkovics idea is that the pendulum moves independent of the lever.
I may not be seeing something that you are thinking, but if you show me a drawing of what you are thinking, I would be happy to give you some suggestions.
I am in the process of building a new frame for a tsmo, and hopefully will have it completed soon.

Maybe I was not clear enough or you misunderstand me. Manipulation of pivot point with lever is possible (without working machine, by hand, try ) but ONLY to understand the law of motion (extracted by measuring the movement of pivot, acceleration etc.) good enough to get a picture of possible working cycle in order to choose the working machine that best fits. Maybe no one, but with the one what is fits, the loss will bi minimal.

If you reread some of the previous posts, you'll find my stand point, but for sure, here : http://www.overunity.com/14225/two-stage-mechanical-oscillator-measurement-framework/ (there is no isolation of circular movement of pivot)

Consider isolation of circular movement of pendulum pivot...

Paolo

[PaoloGigli]

Some conversation from PM... of common interest...

1) By now, I've found that TSMO doesn't produce overunity. The reason is that its pivot point should move of a very few distance, or the pendulum reduces the oscillation very much and then it's necessary put too much energy for let it oscillate again.

If you translate your conclusion in common language, this means that your working side need more energy than pendulum could give and proceed to work smoothly. In other words, useful work of pendulum is small. Pendulum needs almost all energy for swinging and a fraction you could use for real work. This is the reason for heavy weight bob, then the "fraction" is greater. Sadly but truth...

And for having a very short movement of the pivot point you need a very bad ratio between the two arms.

I propose you a game
Use old tennis ball, ~75 cm of fishing line and 10 cm of welding wire. Put wire through ball and do the rest to make tennis ball with fishing line pendulum. If you play with it, you will realize that moving pivot (your fingers) up and down in curtain manner you could control the swing of pendulum. If this movement is greater, the swing is greater and opposite. Then make a lever from, lets say, no more then 1 meter of wooden plunk pivoting in the middle. Put pendulum in one side and try to make the same movement of pendulum like previous by moving by hand the opposite side of pendulum. I bet you could not or very hard. Then use some quadratic part of carton (10x10 cm) with hole in the middle. Put fishing line through this hole and hook to the lever again. Make carton to be stable bellow pivot but far enough to let lever move freely. Try to make again the same as by bare hand. I bet it is easier to control the swing. What is the morals of the game.
1. You could control the swing by moving the lever,
2. Vertical movement could be great,
3. Movement of a pivot (hole in the carton) is strictly vertical

The consequence of this game is following: We make pendulum to oscillate by vertical movement of pivot, we could use some machine, instead of our hand, to mimic the movement of our hand (in sense of a working cycle) and in that way support the swinging of a pendulum and then we could add to the pendulum some energy to do the work of such machine (in this situation we will have the least losses)

2) Using sensors, as you says, could be a good way for see if this system, in any ways, could work or not. But, have you ideas about any improvement of the system, such to really obtain overunity?

First, your question. TSMO is not capable to make overunity. I think I already told you why (or post in the forum). Because, for every full swing you have to recreate the initial conditions, ie. to put pendulum in starting position. After swing and returning in starting position, pendulum do not have the same high like in start and you have to add some quantity of energy to compensate this. In every swing! Does this looks you as good conditions for overunity?
  - Input energy is not a compensation solely but starting potential energy of a pendulum.
  - Compensation is a matter of loos and a fraction of work did it by some working machine.
  - TSMO have really bad efficiency.

And some improvements... As I already have propose, strictly vertical movement of pendulum pivot and also strictly vertical movement of working machine pivot (obvious) in order to minimize horizontal component of acceleration. Lever and pendulum needs smooth movements to achieve best transfer of energy (most efficient).

In other words, "12 times more output than input" claim by Milkovic group had arise from deep misunderstanding of two stage mechanical oscillator way of work. We have to ask ourselves, how come that free energy community spent so much time in investigating and experimenting without critical questioning of starting premise about what it is a real input energy in the system pendulum/lever? This is a serious question and needs proper answer.