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

[neptune]

@Norman6538 . It was interesting to read of your proposed tests in the above post .The thing is , If you read my recent posts ,that I have done theses tests , at least partly , in practice rather than theory . Rather than actually catch the pendulum at the far end of its swing , I make it move a a marker to show its highest point , and then catch it by hand to stop the swing . What I have not yet done is build the device to hold the counterweight CW in the highest position .So the falling CW MAY be feeding energy back to the pendulum > I know that this can happen [see my recent posts . ] So being pessimistic , lets say that it does feed back . Even , so , the best efficiency I can demonstrate is below 90% . So the particular model I built is nowhere near capable of looping
@ Fishman .Thanks for describing your work . You do not say if this work lead you to the conclusion that your decice was OU or not .Also you have not replied to my bit in a previous post where I try to disprove your theory about pushing down with gravity is more efficient than direct lifting .Please let me know what you think .
  I have a theory buzzing around in my head about why efficiency might actually improve with pendulum weight .When I get it sorted out , I will write about it later .

[neptune]

@ Fishman . would it be possible to show a diagram of your version of the 2SO please . I am finding it hard to visualise .
     In one his videos rhead 100 says that if we make a pendulum heavier without altering its length or aerodynamic profile , it obviously takes more energy to raise it to its start position . This is true . but than he says that it takes no more energy to maintain its amplitude .  . If you look through his videos , you will find one entitled something like " Weight of pendulum does matter" , and he shows some experiments with a bike wheel . The video is a bit muddled and needs editing because he has a problem with the bearings . Watch the second half . He has two weights of identical size but one is twice the weight of the other . He makes a pendulum by attaching each weight in turn to the wheel rim . He shows that with the heavier weight , the pendulum makes twice as many strokes before stopping . Look carefully and you will see that the heavier pendulum loses less height per stroke than the lighter one . So to maintain its amplitude , we would only need to lift the weight half as far .But it weighs TWICE AS MUCH so therefore the energy input is the same for both pendulums . So Raymond looks to be right on this . The centrifugal force on the larger pendulum will be double , but the 2SO will need twice the "dead weight" on the output arm to balance the system BEFORE we add the counterweight to balance the system .So , I think that there is no real gain from a heavier pendulum, if as I suspect , centrifugal force is directly proportional to weight .Her are the results of a crude experiment I did today . I turned my bike upside down , and made the front wheel into a pendulum by attching a number of microwave oven magnets to the rim in a cluster . In each test , I started with the weight at the top , and let it do almost a full turn until it stopped .The wheel has 36 spokes , and so , 36 gaps between spokes . By counting the gaps we can see by how much the wheel stopped short of top dead centre . each gap is 10 degrees .
       Number of Magnets                          Degrees away from top dead centre at end of swing
     1                                                      35
     2                                                      35
     3                                                        33
     4                                                        25


    6                                                         20
    8                                                         15
From this crude data we can see that as the weight increases , the height loss per swing decreases  . In a perfect test the relation ship is probably a directly proportional one , but here we are testing not a pure pendulum , but one with an attached flywheel I just realised a made a mistake , I should have measure the VERTICAL HEIGHT short of TDC rather than the angle . Doing this would bring the data more in line with the theory ..Can anyone tell me for sure , is centrifugal force directly proportional to weight ?
ADDED LATER .  I just repeated the experiment with vertical measurements . As near as I can measure, if we double the weight , the vertical distance short of TDC is halved , as I suspected .

[johnny874]

   ..Can anyone tell me for sure , is centrifugal force directly proportional to weight ?

Normally I would say yes, but there is a catch.
Basically, when it is above the level of the axle, then it's radial postion to the axis would help to calculate it's loss of inertia.
And usually when g-force/cf/inertia is considered, it's at much higher values than what we would consider.
There is a video by MIT that shows a spinning bycicle wheel turning perpendicular to gravity because of it's inertia. But with speeds below and either going with the flow of gravity or in opposition to it, the weight's radial position would affect the cf potential.

[neptune]

Hi Johnny and thanks for that input . I am not so hot on mathematics , but I found a simple formula that will help me . Aparrently , centrifugal force = mass x velocity squared , and divide the result by Radius .I am hunting parts to build an off balance wheel model , but need to get some local help with welding . I have reached the reluctant conclusion that in its basic form , the 2SO is not overunity . I think Milkovic`s pump just makes the pumping easier because it is a more convenient way to do the job .I also think at this stage that my hero , Raymond Head has got his calculations wrong . In a video he shows a 140 pound pendulum lifting  a claimed 70 pounds , with an estimated hand push of about 10 pounds . His lever is 3 to 1 . So in reality , about 50 pounds of the "load "is used to balance the static weight of the pendulum , and the real load is 70 minus 50 = 20 pounds .
         With a fully rotating pendulum , as opposed to an oscillating one , The bob has a down force at bottom dead centre of 5 times its static weight . The big question is of course , what price has to be paid for that increase . My next quest is to answer that question .

[Cloxxki]

You have GOT to be kidding me...


An increased pendulum weight, all else being equal resulting in more swings? A proof of improved efficiency, a path towards findimg overunity?
How in the world is the pendulum to extract all that added kinectic energy in the same number of swings?
All a heavier pendulum does, is take a bigger weapon to fight more or less unchanged enemy: air drag.


Please don't allow inventors to go into fuzzy science. Especially if they compain about lack of funding and needing to upscale.