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

[exnihiloest]

...
This is it! the weight change appears at the pivot point!
Now take a one meter long arm and attach an 18 Kg  pendulum to one end with the fulcrum at the 500 mm mark. You must press down on the free end with a force of 18 Kg to bring the arm level. But you are doing no work.
...

Hi ron,

That is right. But here is what you missed.
You do no work when you raise the pivot of a pendulum.
But you don't raise the bob!

In fact it is obvious that a little work have to be done because the bob is attached to the lever: if one end of the lever goes up, the other one partially also, and the bob also  (a trigonometric calculus could give us the new height of the bob after having raised the pivot). Nevertheless it is not the point, this work is small if we don't raise much the pivot.

Now the pivot is higher than before but the bob is not. Then the angular amplitude of its movement will be lesser. The mean position of the center of gravity of the bob remains unchanged and its mean potential/kinetic energies also. The energy balance is null.

We see we did no work, but the pendulum did not as well.

[i_ron]

Hi ron,

That is right. But here is what you missed.
You do no work when you raise the pivot of a pendulum.
But you don't raise the bob!

In fact it is obvious that a little work have to be done because the bob is attached to the lever: if one end of the lever goes up, the other one partially also, and the bob also  (a trigonometric calculus could give us the new height of the bob after having raised the pivot). Nevertheless it is not the point, this work is small if we don't raise much the pivot.

Now the pivot is higher than before but the bob is not. Then the angular amplitude of its movement will be lesser. The mean position of the center of gravity of the bob remains unchanged and its mean potential/kinetic energies also. The energy balance is null.

We see we did no work, but the pendulum did not as well.

All the evidence of all the working models puts the lie to your statement, sorry.

But you do bring up a point that has been recognized. I have written on this very thing... in allowing the pivot point to move up and down out of sync with it's "natural" movement does cause an increase in the input energy required. For an example, at Botafumeiro we see classic mechanics  as the monks pull down on the rope, thus raising the burner at its 6:00 o'clock position. In the Milkovic device the bob is in decent at this point.

But it seems to work well (comfortably) at under 50 mm on the Mk 5.3, so this is not really a great problem.

This is a work in progress that I have shared with you and I am surprised that no one has pointed out this ... the inefficiency of the solenoid drive... less than 30%.  So the conclusion should be, wow, even with less than a 30% input drive the machine is still over unity!

Ron

[i_ron]

It would be interesting to see just how the "output" was measured.

My guess is it was done with a spring scale, in which case most of the energy would have been fed back into the system. Let it hit a solid surface and then see how it performs. If my experiments and simulations are an indicator, very poorly !

Hans von Lieven

Hans, your statement above was made in ignorance. I provided you with a link, yet you have not corrected your slanderous remarks.

This does not surprise me as I have read your, “Milkovic’s pendulum is bullshit” remarks on other lists before now.

So, to the best of my abilities, I have done the experiment and published my numbers, which you ignore. With an attitude like that why are you here? Have you no personal integrity to correct your wrongful statements, to honestly investigate new sources of information?

You have certainly exposed yourself and shown your true colors to this list.

Ron

[Merg]

In this paper announced in the last sunday news at peswiki.com (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Merenja/Ronald_Pugh_Input-Ouput_Measurement_Mk5.pdf) there is a Milkovic Output/Input measurement at COP 1.46.

It is very interesting that Brian Berrett also got the same COP 1.46 two years ago

There is only a small electrical advantage with just six induction coils on the secondary oscillator wheel as presently configured. The input coil consumes 1 amp at twelve volts at approximately a 20% duty cycle which comes to around 2.4 Watts. The output is between 200 and 300 mAmps, at between 14 and 15 Volts, which comes to around 3.5 Watts AC (sine wave). These are very rough measurements and don't represent a full curve analysis of the input and output.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Milkovic-Berrett_Secondary_Oscillator_Generator#Electrical

[i_ron]

It is very interesting that Brian Berrett also got the same COP 1.46 two years ago

There is only a small electrical advantage with just six induction coils on the secondary oscillator wheel as presently configured. The input coil consumes 1 amp at twelve volts at approximately a 20% duty cycle which comes to around 2.4 Watts. The output is between 200 and 300 mAmps, at between 14 and 15 Volts, which comes to around 3.5 Watts AC (sine wave). These are very rough measurements and don't represent a full curve analysis of the input and output.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Milkovic-Berrett_Secondary_Oscillator_Generator#Electrical

Merg,

Interesting, I had forgotten that. The only conclusion can be that even with very very inefficient replicas OU is the norm.

Ron