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

[MarkE]

The presentation in Chinese.

It's the same BS:  Misrepresenting machines that do not produce useful output as producing more useful output energy than input energy consumed.

[sm0ky2]

@Lawrence

Very Simple Experiment::

Take a Mechanical Water Pump, and attach it to an unbalanced wheel.

Data:
1) Measure the amount of water, over time, pumped to Height (x).    E = mg(x)
2) Measure the energy, over time, used to turn the wheel.

Conclusion: Compare Energy (1), to Energy (2).

Perform this experiment as many times as necessary to achieve the results you desire, and present the details of your experiment and the data. In a manner in which it can be replicated.

There is NO need to confuse this issue with theories of "lead-out" energy, or any hypothesis what so ever.
Just raw data.

Then, and Only then, can further discussion be validated.
  --- I propose that up to now, all replicatable experimental results are in direct contradiction to your "lead-out energy" theory.

If you wish to change anyone's mind about this, perform the experiment and present it in its simplest form.
Your theories on this matter are quite frankly irrelevant to any empirical experimental data.

[MarkE]

For the bright student, the teacher only needs to say once.  For the lowest grade students, I shall say one more (last) time.

That's hilarious Lawrence because you obstinately reject the fact that your machines produce no useful output.

[/b]
1.  Mass m1 is lifted only when the Centrifugal Force Fc + m2*g is higher than m1*g.

And then you summarily ignore the fact that m1 gets dropped in the same cycle, resulting in zero net work being performed on m1.

2.  During the lifting, the amplitude of swing does not decrease.

This is false as has been pointed out to you many times.

3.  The energy required does not come from the pendulum.  The. only other source is gravity.

The energy transferred temporarily to increased GPE in m1 during part of the cycle absolutely comes from the pendulum, which obtained all its energy from the operator.

4.  When m1 is raised to a high h, the potential energy gained is m1*g*h.  This lead-out energy is available to do work.

A. There is no "lead-out" energy.  B. Any energy expended must be replenished by the operator.  The coins in your pocket are not "lead-out" money.  And if you spend them on anything, then they will be gone and you cannot spend them any additional times.

5.  The pendulum bob swings higher.  The velocity gets lower  The Centrifugal Force decreases.  The Force m1*g is again greater than m2*g + Fc.  The mass m1 falls back to ground.  The original position or state is repeated.

Meaning that the energy that was temporarily transferred to increased GPE in m1 has now been transferred back to another part of the machine, and no net work was performed on m1.  No net work was available cycle to cycle to do work, despite your false statement 4.

6.  The energy to return the pendulum system to the original position is m2*g*h.  This energy comes from the lead-out energy mentioned in 4.

You are wrong again.  There is no "lead-out energy".  Energy supplied by the external operator redistributes, and both m1 and m2 simply cycle between different potential and kinetic energy states over the course of each cycle.

7.  The difference (m1-m2)*g*h is used to produce the loud bang noise in the original Milkovic.  In the later Milkovic, that energy is used to pump water. 

All energy output be it in the form of sound or mechanical work applied to an external load is lost each cycle and the external operator must replenish it in order ot keep the machine going.

8.  That amount of energy (m1-m2)*g*h is relatively small because the period of the pendulum is fixed.

That statement is completely non-sensical.

9.  The obvious improvement is to replace the pendulum by an Unbalanced Wheel.  The amount of gravitational energy can be increased hundred or thousand times because of the much higher rotational speed.

An unbalanced wheel is just another form of pendulum.  Changing one for the other takes a machine that produces no useful output and converts it into a machine that produces no useful output with a different resonant frequency.

10.  The QMOGENs get it right.  The Motor is used to increase the rotational speed.  The Centrifugal Force varies as the square of the angular velocity.  Thus increasing the rotational speed leads out much more gravitational energy.

No QMOGEN has ever been shown to work.  No QMOGEN has ever been shown to "lead-out" energy of any kind.  Some have been shown to lead-out money from gullible investors' wallets.

11.  The Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier is effectively many Unbalanced Wheels joined together to form Unbalanced Cylinders.  Thus it can lead-out much more gravitational energy.

Where may one find any official statement from Tsinghua University that they ever developed this "Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier" that you claim?  Where is there any test data showing the performance of such a device and whetehr or not it generates an output energy in surplus of the input energy?

This is the last time I answer this lead-out energy question.  If the student does not understand, too bad.  Let them ask help from the bright ones.

Lawrence
see reply 2826

Promises, promises Lawrence.  You keep promising that "this time" will be the last time that you tell your fairy tales.  It hasn't generally taken very long for you to change your mind and tell them again.

[ltseung888]

@Lawrence

Very Simple Experiment::

Take a Mechanical Water Pump, and attach it to an unbalanced wheel.

Data:
1) Measure the amount of water, over time, pumped to Height (x).    E = mg(x)
2) Measure the energy, over time, used to turn the wheel.

Conclusion: Compare Energy (1), to Energy (2).

Perform this experiment as many times as necessary to achieve the results you desire, and present the details of your experiment and the data. In a manner in which it can be replicated.

There is NO need to confuse this issue with theories of "lead-out" energy, or any hypothesis what so ever.
Just raw data.

Then, and Only then, can further discussion be validated.
  --- I propose that up to now, all replicatable experimental results are in direct contradiction to your "lead-out energy" theory.

If you wish to change anyone's mind about this, perform the experiment and present it in its simplest form.
Your theories on this matter are quite frankly irrelevant to any empirical experimental data.

Thank you for a good suggestion.  Keep the constructive comments coming.

I am too old and too weak to do experiments myself.  Let others shine.

The diagram shown on reply 2813 on March 3, 2015 has been seen over 200 times.  I personally discussed it with at least 10 individuals.  Some expressed an interest in actually doing such a QMOGEN.

I am more interested in the outcome of such a QMOGEN in Hong Kong and China where I can have direct access.  Others are welcome to do it in their native countries.

Divine Wine is for all to share.

Lawrence
see reply 2826

[MarkE]

Lawrence, I am sorry that you are old and feeble.   But making your legacy one of promoting nonsense and lies does not seem a good way to go.