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

[FreeEnergy]

@ Free Energy,

No, at this stage I would not go as far as this. By the same token I have not completely discarded the idea either.

The main problem with the device is its erratic behaviour. If the energy that causes this can be channelled in the desired direction perhaps it is possible to extract more energy from the system than we put in.

What we are dealing with is essentially a double pendulum. They behave in a strange way and become more and more chaotic as time goes by or as energy input increases. It is impossible to mathematically predict the behaviour of such an arrangement over any length of time.

The only way to control it at the moment is to severely dampen the reaction with counterweights, springs and so forth, which eat up energy at a furious pace. If that energy can be channelled it might become a different story.

Below is a simulation of a double pendulum. This animated GIF was taken from a physics site and is authoritative. It is easy to rig this up and observe the phenomenon yourself. Just add a balance arm beyond the fulcrum and add a dampening weight and you have the Milkovic device.

Hans von Lieven

very very nice thanks for sharing. this gives me a whole new perspective on this Mikovic device. the animation is great!

peace

[FreeEnergy]

even if someone manages to build a self runner using this system, don't expect it to revolutionise power generation.

why not? i would put into use for myself and share it with friends, etc.

[Eddy Currentz]

Why hasnt the loop been closed? 

If the basic premise is correct, and if, say, input is 1 stroke, output is 10 strokes, how come 1 of the extra 10 strokes hasnt been utilised to close the loop?

If I had built one of these, and it truly gave the first step to 'overunity', I'd immediately move to close the loop with the many relatively simple methods available. Why this isnt being done is anyones guess.

God help us.

Hans has been gracious enough to design it, all we need is someone to build it (hint, hint).   

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

I wouldn't put too much stock in my "design". There are a number of things wrong with it that are not easy to overcome. It was never meant as a design to which a machine should be built, it was more an illustration of a possible approach. Sort of like a workout at the mental gym :-)

The system to function at all relies on resonance. Key to it is keeping the pendulum moving at its resonant frequency. Now normally, like in a pendulum clock, that would not be much of a problem, this has been solved centuries ago with the escapement mechanism. So why don't we use that?

Well, for one, the pendulum's fulcrum in a clock is in a fixed position. In the Milkovic device it is not. Here it moves in an arc relative to the fixed fulcrum of the balance beam. This in effect makes the balance arm a pendulum in its own right, with its own resonant frequency. The balance arm is moved solely by the centripetal forces that develop in the pendulum. It is important to understand this. As the pendulum reverses swing the centripetal forces are temporarily suspended and the balance beam because of its counterweight moves upwards. Since for every complete cycle of the pendulum there are two such points, the balance beam moves at TWICE the frequency of the pendulum.

We no longer have a clean relationship between resonant frequencies because now we have a natural frequency (the pendulum) and a forced frequency (the balance arm)

These two are antagonistic to each other resulting in erratic behaviour. Milkovic compensates for this by pushing the pendulum with his finger at what he judges to be an opportune moment. A mechanical device is not that flexible.

There are a number of other antagonistic frequencies that develop in the device, to go into this here would exceed the scope of this post. Perhaps I should write a paper on this when I have the chance.

The trick with this device would be to design it in such a way where all emerging vibrations are in a harmonic relationship to each other thus creating what Keely called a "Neutral Centre".

This is easier said than done. Perhaps you will understand now why I am putting so much work and research into this device and how it interfaces with my attempt to replicate Keely. Here we have a mechanical analogy to Keely's acoustic system. Interesting stuff indeed.

Hans von Lieven

[fletcher]

Thanks Hans .. that's about the most lucid & succinct account I've heard yet