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

[i_ron]

A simple way of looking at where the energy goes is this:

If your Milkovic beam is stalled - the pendulum just oscillates like an ordinary pendulum.  This proves nothing.

If the beam moves - doing work - then consider the degrees of angular momentum that are "lost" - they are the exact same number of degrees that the beam moves.  The energy that keeps a pendulum going is the pull of gravity on the fall down.  As the beam moves X number of degrees down, the pendulum is robbed of exactly X number of degrees of gravity assist. 

The reason we are fooled by Milkovic is because a Lever is a cool torque amplifier - at the expense of distance.  And a pendulum is a cool energy storage device.  Coupled together - we can fool ourselves by putting in a small force - applied over a greater distance, and over a greater period of time - to achieve a great thumping impulse for a very short period of time, over a very short distance ...

Unfortunately, you offer this as an opinion only. 
Where is the experiment and the numbers to back up your pronouncements?

Ron

[Talmin]

Latest news from www.veljkomilkovic.com

Dear friends,

recently Mr. Bojan Petkovic completed the draft version of his mathematical model and analysis of the two-stage mechanical oscillator and now he wishes to share it with the scientific community for public discussion and peer review.

Modeling and simulation of a double pendulum with pad by Bojan Petkovic, engineer:
An independent mathematical analysis by Bojan Petkovic considers the Veljko Milkovic's two-stage mechanical oscillator in a form of double pendulum with a pad that presents a mechanical system which is not analyzed in the literature:
"In this paper, results of the simulation of a double pendulum with a horizontal pad are presented. Pendulums are arranged in such a way that in the static equilibrium, small pendulum takes the vertical position, while the big pendulum is in a horizontal position and rests on the pad. Motion during one half oscillation is investigated. Impact of the big pendulum on the pad is considered to be ideally inelastic. Characteristic positions and angular velocities of both pendulums, as well as their energies at each instant of time are presented. Obtained results proved to be in accordance with the motion of the real physical system. Double pendulum with pad refers to the two-stage mechanical oscillator that is invented, patented and constructed by Serbian inventor Veljko Milković..."

You can read and download the paper on the next link (213 KB - PDF):
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Bojan_Petkovic-Modeling_and_Simulation_of_a_Double_Pendulum_With_Pad.pdf

[cleanfuture]

I have built and tested a replica of the Milcovitc design myself. It is about 1m tall and is entirely made from a K-Nex construction kit. The model incorporates a .8m diameter wheel that is driven by a geared up ratchet mechanism attached to the pivot shaft of the main cross beam. The idea was to convert the oscillation into a rotation of a flywheel. Mechanically, It was actually not all  that hard to do. That is why I can't work out that Milcovitc has not build a model like that himself yet. He has registered a patent on a design like this but has, to the best of my knowledge, not built one like that. If you want to prove if you can make self sustainable power, a rotational output is ideal because it interfaces with of the shelf electric generator/alternators. Milcovitc does not seem to be very professional. When I saw his video where he is proposing that the pendulum pump could alleviate unemployment in the country by employing people to hand operate pendulum pumps allover the place, I knew he was a propeller-head. Anyway, my tests showed clearly that the load from the wheel does indeed reflect back on the movement of the pendulum. With the main beam locked rigid, the pendulum will swing considerably longer than if the beam is allowed to oscillate and create power through the wheel. The rate of damping on the pendulum is proportional to the rate of amplitude of the beam. If you gays are interested, I will post a picture of the thing.
Uli

[neptune]

@Cleanfurure. I still believe this device may be overunity. If you study the work of RHEAD100 on Youtube, his maths seems to suggest that max efficiency is achieved at small movements of the beam. Out put must be extracted from both the up and down movements of the beam. Tuning would seem to be the whole key. I am slowly collecting parts for a new model. Final proof of overunity in my opinion can accurately be measured by rising/falling weights, see my last post.
                    In my opinion the mathematical analysis by Bojan Petkovic is a waste of time, because having waded through his pages of B/S we are still left wondering is he saying it is overunity or not??
                      @Cleanfuture, please read my last post. This idea, after tuning will tell you the truth.

[cleanfuture]

@Cleanfurure. I still believe this device may be overunity. If you study the work of RHEAD100 on Youtube, his maths seems to suggest that max efficiency is achieved at small movements of the beam. Out put must be extracted from both the up and down movements of the beam. Tuning would seem to be the whole key. I am slowly collecting parts for a new model. Final proof of overunity in my opinion can accurately be measured by rising/falling weights, see my last post.
                    In my opinion the mathematical analysis by Bojan Petkovic is a waste of time, because having waded through his pages of B/S we are still left wondering is he saying it is overunity or not??
                      @Cleanfuture, please read my last post. This idea, after tuning will tell you the truth.

I appreciate your comment. I did try to keep the stroke as short as possible though. The output from the beam axle is geared up 12 to 1 to get appreciable angular movement on the drive gear to the flywheel. This shows, since power is force over distance, as soon as the power output is increased, the pendulum is dampened. What you are saying is that there is some kind of non linear harmonic relationship going between the pendulum period and the beam movement. I think the way you are proposing to prove this will work. I just cannot understand that Milcovitc has not been able to build a device himself that provides irrefutable prove of overunity.
Uli