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

[fletcher]

Then, explain it. Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded#

See above post - I doubt you'll learn it though !

[Omnibus]

See above post - I doubt you'll learn it though !

No, it's you who needs to learn. Where's the proof that there's no OU in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded# ?

[Bubba1]

Notice the height of the black weight at the start (0:00) and compare that height to the height of the weight as it comes around to the top again (at 0:07).  At 0:07, the black weight is slightly lower than it was at 0:00, meaning the arm has lost some potential energy and gained some kinetic energy.  I do not see OU here.

[Omnibus]

Notice the height of the black weight at the start (0:00) and compare that height to the height of the weight as it comes around to the top again (at 0:07).  At 0:07, the black weight is slightly lower than it was at 0:00, meaning the arm has lost some potential energy and gained some kinetic energy.  I do not see OU here.

Why do you stop at 0:07s in your analysis? Starting from rest the wheel makes one turn (granted the lever is lower at 0:07s ath the completion of the first turn) but then the wheel makes another turn restoring the same lever height and almost completes yet another, third turn. Did you notice that or in order to conclude there's no OU we only have to observe experiments partially?

Is the wheel going to behave this way should the weight be attached directly to its periphery at 12 o'clock and not as a double pendulum as in the video? Will it complete even one full turn this way?

[Omnibus]

No .. in that video the guy is hand positioning the imbalance [as Vidar said] & in doing so has lifted the Pe of the pendulum so that it sits high at rim level - IOW's he added Potential Energy of Position into the system to prime it.

Did you see at anytime the single or dual pendulums etc ever achieve the same starting height ? - the answer is NO - what you saw was a system that acted like a chain weighted pendulum clock - it's center of mass [CoM] was lowered one time & that Pe wass converted into Ke & momentum - it is not self sustaining nor achieved a restoration of Pe to be self sustaining, therefore not OU.

Omnibus wrote > Thermodynamics never takes into account the energy put in to build a machine. The energy balance in thermodynamics is always done from the moment there is a machine available on. In this case the work of the machine starts from standstill. At that standstill the machine has certain gravitational potential energy, as a, say, ball has when sitting on a table with respect to the floor. In the case of a ball on a table, once it's let go towards the floor it can never recover the initial potential energy due to losses and never reaches the height of the table on its own. In this case the construction more than recovers the initially put in energy thus prodicing excess energy ("energy out of nothing", as it were).

Non-sense ! - see above.

To be OU a machine [already constructed] must restore its Potential Energy - if that is an oscillating device that means achieving the same or better starting height for CoM.

If that is a rotating system then the device must restore full Pe of Position & if excess Energy is available it will also manifest as excess momentum & Ke seen as excess velocity as it completes a cycle - so the conditions to be OU is that Pe is restored & to do Work there must also be excess momentum after one cycle.

Non of your examples did this, therefore NOT OU !

On the contrary, what you're saying is nonsense. My explanation is valid even if someone is holding a ball at rest above ground and lets it go. The ball will not return to the same height because of losses -- therefor there's no CoE violation. In the video at hand, however, the weight obviously restores its initial height during the second turn. Therefore excess energy is produced. Unfortunately the excess energy produced is in a form which doesn't allow direct looping (restoring the inital position on the fly). That's a purely technical problem and has nothing to do with the obvious violation of CoE in this case.