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

[neptune]

Hi guys , some interesting posts today . It is true that building takes time and space and money . So to build some thing we need something to motivate us , that is we need to see some possibility of success . That is why I think it best to start with simple experiments to prove the principle . As stated in recent posts , I think looping is easy peasy , given proof of OU to motivate me . Just a quick word on off balance wheels versus pendulums .Fly wheels are easier to drive , and can be driven at any speed .The pendulum has one big advantage , in that it stops twice per cycle . This allows you to raise the pivot back up without fighting centrifugal force .
       I have read Peter Lindeman and studied Raymond Head [rhead100] In my opinion Raymond has done more for this technology than anyone else .Sadly we have not heard from him for months . I would love to contact him , but I do not know how.I have also been unsuccessful in contacting jovan Marjanovic .
      I am not a great mathematician . I feel that while maths has its place , it is useless unless what is predicted can be shown to work in reality .Regarding tuning the 2SO any practical advice that can be shown to improve performance would be valuable , especially if we can come up with some "rules of thumb"
      Regarding escapements . I find them fascinating . But I feel that to study them before proving OU in the most basic "single swing "tests , is a bit like looking at holiday brochures because you bought a lottery ticket , even though the results dont come out until the weekend.
@Fishman . I have had 24 hours to think about your theory that it takes less energy to maintain a pendulum by pushing the bob down as it descends as opposed to actually lifting the bob at the end of the stroke .Suppose we have a pendulum that has losses of wind and friction . We release it from the horizontal . After 1 swing we find that it rises to a point 1 cm below its start point . The pendulum weighs 1Kg . So to overcome losses we need to lift 1 KG by 1 cm . But you say that if we push it for 1 cm as it falls , with one third of a Kg , the result will be the same . If that is true, we have no need of the 2SO , because already we have a machine with an input of 1/3 Kg cm , and an output of 1Kg cm ; an OU factor of three .Do you agree or disagree ? Kind regards , Ken .
AN AFTER THOUGHT ON UNBALANCED WHEELS . The trick is to drive the wheel with an electric motor that is only just "boss of the job " . That way , the wheel is almost stopped at top dead centre , but at bottom dead centre its speed is greater than it would be if allowed to fall by gravity . With gravity alone , the weight , plus centrifugal force weighs 5 times normal . With the motor , it could be more .

[Cloxxki]

Neptune,

Thank you for your neutral response. I am aware I am depressing some really bright folks here. I am a truth seeker too though, and false hopes need to be crushed asap for enlightenment to have any chance.

Indeed, gymwork is hard, even if the weight seems to only oscillate.
HOWEVER.
When I'm bench pressing, I am not done when I've extended my elbows. I still have to do braking work on the way down, or the barbell will decapitate me. I don't NEED the weight to press down on my body as strongly, but I'm holding it, and can't deal with the impact upon muscle-less reset.
I am doing more work with doing 10 reps, than 10x the height of the ligt times the weight (and that of my arms' COM).
Up to 2x as much work, when the bar doesn't reach my chest.

The weight at the second stage is lifted, OK. This is work, for that moment. But the cycle is not over.
The weight is reset, coming down.
What is less obvious, is the work the weight coming down is performing.
It's in its turn resetting the pendulum.
Why? The pendulum delivered the work to raise the weight. Now the weight need to swing the pendulum back up.
If you measure well, you'll note that the weight on the way down is NOT in freefall.

If you were to unhook the weight at the top of it's oscillation, and at the same limit the vertical movement of the crossbar with a simple stop...
You could in 2SO theory le the weight do work for an external gravity extraction device. Place the weight where the 2SO is expecting it fo a lift, and let the cycle repeat.
This doesn't work, because the weight coming down is an (inefficient) way to give the pendulum back the energy it donated.

It all happens in a blink of the eye, impossible to see how the KE flows through the system, however simple it is in design.

Well, the claim was not infinite overunity, just 12x.
that would mean, in my above story, that only 1/12 of the weight were to be needed to keep the cycle going.
With a giant 2SO, 12 Gouda cheeses would be on the second stage. 11 taken off at top, and 11 new ones added at the bottom.
Or, you'd raise 12 cheeses, one would roll over the the pendulum side, and crash full-on against it. The other 11 cheeses were taken off the elevator at the top.

Your 60% measurement might well be, because the pendulum is more efficient in pulling on it's rod, lifting the second stage, than the second stage is efficient in accelerating a pendulum, connected via crossbar, back up to speed.
The pendulum pull straight in the direction of its CF, which is at close to 90º with the see-saw crossbar.
The second stage is also nicely vertical with a level crossbar, however the pendulum is not staying put.

I could see 10% of losses at the input side, and 30% on the feedback, to come to your 60%. (I know that's fuzzy math, but you get my drift.)

I admire the work done on escapements, especially by RHEAD. And I have little doubt that 95% efficiency will at one point be attained. That would be quite an engineering accomplishment. Perhaps it could be applied to engine systems, those are suffering from similar efficiency issues in mechanical force transfer.

[neptune]

Hi Cloxxki .Many thanks for your lengthy reply . It is true what you say about false hopes needing to be crushed . Your reply has important implications that will take me a while to fully understand , but I will reply when I have thought about it . I am 66 years old , and as you may have guessed I do not do a lot of bench pressing these days , although I still bike at least 10 miles every day . Later , Ken .
   ADDED LATER. Ok ,I can see how if the load weight is falling at a speed less than freefall , work input would be necessary . I did a short test to see if I could maintain or increase the pendulum amplitude by physically moving the beam . I started by raising the pendulum to about 30 degrees away from the vertical, and marking this position with a piece of wood . I then released the pendulum , and tried moving the beam in  way that was synchronised way with the pendulum , both at pendulum speed , and twice that speed . I tried various phasings . I was unable to maintain , let alone increase pendulum amplitude . This experiment was not conclusive because it was done by hand and eye . And yet if we just take a simple pendulum , we can drive it by hand and eye . Basically I understand and agree with your theory that to be OU the machine must lift a stream of weights in an elevator fashion . But I can not show a high efficiency even allowing the lifted weight yo fall , and [allegedly , perhaps ] and adding energy to the pendulum .Whilst a 95% efficient mechanism would have its uses , that is not what most of us are seeking .Can anyone show a pendulum maintained or increased in amplitude by moving the beam by hand ? Yours , still puzzled ,Ken .

[Cloxxki]

Hi Cloxxki .Many thanks for your lengthy reply . It is true what you say about false hopes needing to be crushed . Your reply has important implications that will take me a while to fully understand , but I will reply when I have thought about it . I am 66 years old , and as you may have guessed I do not do a lot of bench pressing these days , although I still bike at least 10 miles every day . Later , Ken .

Funny, I know a Ken (R) of similar age in the US who works our quite a bit.

I am just 35. Too young to be wise, but hopefully young enough (and not bothered by any relevant education) to see through mental boobytraps.

Please don't regard me as a wise man in this subject, I just kick people's legs and see what they have to kick back with. Hoping to learn.
Do please ask me about any fuzzyness in my comments. My own insights are on a steep incline right now, hopefully uphill. A picture is forming. About time, considering how long its been hurting my brain.

I sure wish I'd be preaching why it DOES work. When I really get behind an idea (bugging the whole world about it), it usually becomes mainstream in 5-10 years time.
When I find (via forums such as these) someone's open source FE, I'm going to promote the heck out of it, and help develop it. Same with the 2SO, it someone can convince me of any level of OU (the hard part being done), I will design the escapement for it, and even donate whatever cash I have for a replicator to make it happen.

[F_Brown]

I have been running simulations of a Milkovic type system with multibody dynamics modeling, and I have been getting 2x to 4x the input power at the output of the device, although I simulating in a zero gravity environment.  I have yet to model the system with gravity assist.  The output might increase in that case.

Since this this device seems to conflict with traditional ways of calculating efficiency, I suggest that actually physical testing of various setups be done.