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

[johnny874]

@Merg ,.I was most disappointed by the two articles shown above . In my posts above I have shown a simple cheap method which provides irrefutable proof that the 2SO is not overunity . The only thing that was new to me was the 3 stage oscillator . Exactly the same method could be used to test for OU in the 3 stage version . I have shown a simple way to measure input and output . When someone can demonstrate a physical model , that when tested by my method shows greater output than input , then I will be impressed . Untill that time , what is the point of mathematicians spewing forth masses of irrelevant algebra ? They are living in cloud cuckoo land .

   Neptune,
>> Untill that time , what is the point of mathematicians spewing forth masses of irrelevant algebra ?  <<

  I agree. I think the following calculus better describes what they're trying to accomplish. What do you think ?

[neptune]

Hi Johnny . I freely admit that I would not recognise Calculus if it jumped up and bit me . My point was , that you can apply whatever branch of mathematics you like , but unless you can demonstrate that force x distance on the input is less than force times distance on the output , mathematics is irrelevant . For the first time I have shown an easy way to measure input and output accurately .

[johnny874]

Hi Johnny . I freely admit that I would not recognise Calculus if it jumped up and bit me . My point was , that you can apply whatever branch of mathematics you like , but unless you can demonstrate that force x distance on the input is less than force times distance on the output , mathematics is irrelevant . For the first time I have shown an easy way to measure input and output accurately .

  I only got as far as trig. wish I learned more. But math does help as well as auto mechanics.

>>  but unless you can demonstrate that force x distance on the input is less than force times distance on the output , mathematics is irrelevant   <<
that's wrong. a pendulum's potential comes from it's vertical drop. that's why I consider torque important. but that is something everyone ignores until you get in your car. and if your car doesn't have enough, then you buy a different car with a little bit bigger motor so it can accelerate.
( Horse )power is moving a load a specific distance in a set amount of time, but torque is what accelerates in mechanics and everybody has over looked this for 130 pages. I find that in itself difficult to believe.
But am making plans for doing a simple build of Bessler's wheel or what I consider it to be. Who knows what the guy really did ? Still, he is very influential in my work. I think I would have liked him.

[Cloxxki]

What's to be overlooked about torque?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

It's perfectly convertible, no loose ends. Is there a cheat?
A concept difficult to grasp does not automatically make a likely OU keyhole.

We need a vote to get the 2SO off our drawing tables, so we can go on to the next invention.

Cast your votes, is the 2SO OU or not?

I vote NOT and add that the inventors use their lack of understanding of physics as their proof of OU.

[neptune]

@Johnny874 .It is good to see that your recent posts have a bit more of a positive output . There may well be something about torque that we have all overlooked . However , if this is the case , people are unlikely to be convinced unless they see a physical model that demonstrates more output than input .By the way , you recently said that your OU research is a "coping mechanism ". That may well be true of us all to a greater or lesser extent . I have said that I feel I have proved , at least to myself , that the 2SO is not overunity ,.To try to convince others would be an uphill task . It is not what people , least of all Milkovic , would like to hear . It reminds me of the story of the Emperors new clothes . Nevertheless , I think Milkovic is " altogether as naked as the day that he was born ."