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

[fishman]

My take on how it might work are as follows . Friction and air drag are real forces and my experiments have confirmed that if the pendulum is released from the horizontal , the highest point it will reach is , say 2 Cm below horizontal . So if we allow the pendulum pivot to drop 1 cm at bottom dead centre , then the highest point it will rise to is 3 cms below horizontal . But mathematics show that the pivot moves down with a force of 3 times the pendulum weight due to the addition of centrifugal force .If we ignore or eliminate wind drag and friction , the pendulum will rise to 1 cm below horizontal , for a pivot fall of 1cm. So to restore the system , we need to raise the pendulum bob 1cm at a time when its weight is normal , near its highest point . So if the bob weighs 1 Kg ,input is 1Kg -centimeter , and output is 3 Kg- cm , or an OU of 3 minus losses .

You're kind of correct, but not completely. The key point you left out is.
1. To raise the bob 1 cm, to restore the potential energy, you can,
(A) Lift the bob cm1 which means the work is 1KG x 1 CM.
     OR
(B) Push the bob downward to restore it's potential energy. This achieves the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Maybe 1/10th the cost or less.

Just ask yourself who in there right mind lifts the bob-weight to raise a pendulum? Answer, know one.
The reason we push a child on a swing set is because there is an great advantage to push with the influence/acceleration of gravity over lifting against gravity.  Try it you'll quickly dsicover this to be true.

Pushing w/gravity & your "3:1" goes MANY times higher than that. (note your centrifugal force number is too high for the standard small TSO, but your point is right on.)

If you really want to give you OU test a fair shot, you need a longer swing arm, 1 meter at least, 2 meters is much better. More weight also helps a lot.
At 2 meters even if you make mistakes with the build, you should see what you are looking for.

Roland

[neptune]

Hi guys and thanks for the intelligent replies . @ Cloxxi . Your English is excellent . Moving the pendulum pivot down does of course take energy from the pendulum . According to Marjonovic [see later] , this is minimised if we prevent the pendulum pivot from falling until just before bottom dead centre , and prevent it rising untill near top dead centre . If you want to see my last post expressed as a formula , read Marjonovic .
    @ Fishman . Your theory about pushing the bob down instead of lifting it may be right . Or we may be falling into a trap , and it seems easier because it is more convenient . It is easier to lift a car with a jack , rather than by hand . And yet in theory using the jack uses more energy due to losses in the jack . On the other hand cycling uses less energy then walking , in spite of mechanical losses in the bike . Experiments are definitely needed here . When I have done all I can with my small model , I plan to make a large 2 metre model , but it will take time . Incidentally , if anyone has a large model already built and has a few minutes to spare , perhaps someone could use my method to measure efficiency . It needs only a piece of plastic or cardboard . Full details in recent posts . Any questions please ask .
         Now back to Marjanovic . These papers are essential reading for serious 2SO fans . I do not know how to create links . Search on google for      Jovan Marjanovic Secrets of free energy from the pendulum . His other papers are ,
1 Keys of gravity machines
2 Theory of gravity machines
3 Mechanical feedback loop .
       Please do not miss these . Working together , we can lay this thing to rest , either positively or negatively . Even if we can prove it does NOT work , we can help to stop people wasting time on it .

[Cloxxki]

You're kind of correct, but not completely. The key point you left out is.
1. To raise the bob 1 cm, to restore the potential energy, you can,
(A) Lift the bob cm1 which means the work is 1KG x 1 CM.
     OR
(B) Push the bob downward to restore it's potential energy. This achieves the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Maybe 1/10th the cost or less.

Just ask yourself who in there right mind lifts the bob-weight to raise a pendulum? Answer, know one.
The reason we push a child on a swing set is because there is an great advantage to push with the influence/acceleration of gravity over lifting against gravity.  Try it you'll quickly dsicover this to be true.

Pushing w/gravity & your "3:1" goes MANY times higher than that. (note your centrifugal force number is too high for the standard small TSO, but your point is right on.)

If you really want to give you OU test a fair shot, you need a longer swing arm, 1 meter at least, 2 meters is much better. More weight also helps a lot.
At 2 meters even if you make mistakes with the build, you should see what you are looking for.

Roland

Sounds great, although too vague (or complicated) for me to understand.
Could you please explain when and why pushing with gravity is advantageous, and in which frame? Time, Kinetic Energy, height, etc?
Formulae for pendulums, KE and CF are quite straightforward. If you see a gain, please offer the math?

If that were to be true, the 2SO is needlessly complicated. We could extract the excess on the left side of a simple pendulum, and use only part of it to input on the right, contact gain. I've seen other inventions on that premise, but never seen measured gains.

[johnny874]

   Unfortunately, one pendulum can't accelerate another pendulum
when it's motion is parallel to the lever transfering the force. Basically
why a 2SO will never work.

[Cloxxki]

Hi guys and thanks for the intelligent replies . @ Cloxxi . Your English is excellent . Moving the pendulum pivot down does of course take energy from the pendulum . According to Marjonovic [see later] , this is minimised if we prevent the pendulum pivot from falling until just before bottom dead centre , and prevent it rising untill near top dead centre . If you want to see my last post expressed as a formula , read Marjonovic .
   

I once opened a paper the group published, and even with my highschool psysics I could tell within seconds they were making up incorrect formulae with incorrect units of measurement as outcome. A waste of time. It's not up to us to school them, they are to school us.

If they know it so well, they'd build it. They sure have the building skills.
Making wild claims, and letting the world figure out a way to make it work, after which they can claim invention.

If they could point out the underlying math without (intentional or unintensional) errors, this forum would build a working device, 2SO or otherwise, instantly.
Present me a precise pendulum path and the amount of energy to be extracted from CF, and I'll tell you how to build the device to do so.
Same for the second stage (weren't we suppose to extract all those buckets of FE there?). Tell us how much to extract, and we will. Don't blame us when the result is a stalled 2SO.
This is no hint of FE, not even anomalous behavior that I'm aware of.