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

[tagor]

And to be able to figure out correct math we need correct Physics!

what is this correct physics ?
until now the standart model is correct !

[astroshima]

what is this correct physics ?
until now the standart model is correct !

Yeah that's exactly what I mean.
But as we can all see there is no System Equations in quoted "measurement" by Jovan Bebic.
So my "analysis" of that measurement is:
No (system) equations = No correct physics = No correct Math = No correct measurement ...

[tagor]

Yeah that's exactly what I mean.
But as we can all see there is no System Equations in quoted "measurement" by Jovan Bebic.
So my "analysis" of that measurement is:
No (system) equations = No correct physics = No correct Math = No correct measurement ...

ok

[Merg]

And for that particular scenario and that particular apparatus, I think measurement of input energy calculated by formula E=m*g*h is correct.

What I see is that the same author explained very well, shortly and clearly, what is the problem with that formula for input measurement E=mgh and why it cannot be correct for efficiency measurements of this two-stage oscillator:

However, over time, two problems using this simple formula (E=mgh) were found:
1) Once the pendulum starts swinging and moving the lever arm up and down, its
starting angle (position 1 or position 5 in Fig. 3, see below) will go down each
new period. The Pendulum will not be able to move the lever arm until the
end of its swing. It will stop moving the lever arm once its starting angle
comes close to position 2 or 4, see below. Then it will continue swinging in
vain, one hour or more. This means that the pendulum has spent around half
of its potential energy on moving the lever arm and the other half as friction
loses while swinging in vain. This ratio could be even worse, depending on
the oscillator.
2) The second problem is, that each new pendulum period would diminish the
amplitude of the lever arm. This would complicate measuring of the output
energy by any chosen method.

The method chosen by Jovan Bebic has solved both these problems. That is, to
keep adding energy to the pendulum once its starting angle was in position 1 at all times.
Thus the amplitude of the lever arm, as well as the output energy on the generator is
constant and easy to measure.

Also, Mr. Veljko Milkovic has always had an opinion that the efficiency of the
oscillator is in the fact that it is necessary to invest less energy to keep the pendulum
swinging than the energy received from the lever arm. Using a formula for potential
energy would be the same as measuring the efficiency of an engine before it reached its
working temperature.

Extract from:
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Recommendations_for_Efficiency_Measuring.pdf

[astroshima]

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Recommendations_for_Efficiency_Measuring.pdf

1.

"The method chosen by Jovan Bebic has solved both these problems. That is, to
keep adding energy to the pendulum once its starting angle was in position 1 at all times."

I think that instead Ep= m*g*h we will have Ep=m*g*dh (dh=height differential) which is the same formula.
BTW you need here precise strokes to the pendulum + very accurate (slow motion mode) camera with visual scale measuring system + error of the measurement as approximation of the last pendulum swing angle recorded by the camera in slow motion mode...

2.

"For short term usage of the oscillator, formula Ep = mgh can be used..."
If the oscillator is intended for long term usage (and it is) then the initial energy for raising the pendulum up
can be easy disregarded. For short term usage it can not.

And for only one! lift of the pendulum, we have no problems to calculate Ep = mgh.
Since Jovan Bebic uses only one lift of the pendulum here:
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Analysis_Jovan_Bebic_2-measuring.pdf
formula for input Energy Ep = mgh is correct!

3.

"Then it will continue swinging in
vain, one hour or more. This means that the pendulum has spent around half
of its potential energy on moving the lever arm and the other half as friction
loses while swinging in vain. This ratio could be even worse, depending on
the oscillator."

I have seen live apparatus used by Bebic:
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Analysis_Jovan_Bebic_2-measuring.pdf
I think it has been optimized to reduce loses in potential energy of the pendulum. So it is capable to move lever arm longer than other apparatuses. But anyway we can subtract loses by the formula Ep=m*g*(h1-h2).
However all this is not very relevant to for the scenario described in Bebic's paper ("Analysis_Jovan_Bebic_2-measuring")
He has no problem with input measurement (Ep=mgh) there!!!

4.

Using a formula for potential energy would be the same as measuring the efficiency of an engine before it reached its
working temperature.

a) I think that formula for potential Energy is universal and as shown in item 1. can be used in many measurement scenarios including some when aparatus has reached "working temperature"

b) If I remember well, Milkovic claimed that extracting the work at lever arm side do not impact the oscillation of the pendulum! So why do we need "working mode"? If you claim that you can do whatever you like at lever arm side and that this do not impact the pendulum side and that machine is overunity why have you been bothered with Ep=m*g*h? You can input Ep=m*g*h and extract 22 or (12) times more energy at lever arm side with no impact on pendulum side!!!

c) If Milkovic, Bebic, or somebody else publish the measurements of this scenario:
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Analysis_Jovan_Bebic_2-measuring.pdf
using formula Ep=m*g*h for measuring input energy and some Generator or lifter etc... for measuring output energy, and if this measuring do not show overunity then I think it would maybe be "proof" that Extracting the Work (Energy) at lever arm side actually impact the pendulum swing!
And if extracting the work at lever arm side impact the pendulum energy than we maybe have the proof of the Energy Conservation Law in affect!
IF previous deduction is correct then it seems to me that somebody is trying to hide that eventual fact!

d) I think that any attempt not to do or show all measurements (including ones with Ep=m*g*h)
has nothing to do with science but only with some (in my opinion) marketing...
Serious scientific people do all measurements in all scenarios and publish all results!