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

[snowblind]

Hi

first post.

This is the way I see the pendulum machine works:

-----Why we need input energy:

Imagine you have a "perfect" pendulum swinging in a vacum with no friction, on perfect bearings etc..  (impossible but just for this example). It would swing forever without ever losing its speed/slowing down/stopping, Thus requiring no input energy to keep going.

Because we dont have a perfect pendulum, we have to input energy to make up for friction, bearing resistance etc.. that the pendilum encounters while swinging. Note that this energy is not to swing the pendulum, but to keep it swinging because of the resistance it encounters. The pendulum keeps swinging via the force of gravity.

While swinging, the mechanical part of this machine (other end) taps up and down, with a force equal to the weight of the pendilum (say 100kg). this weight can be used to create whatever (power a generator etc..).

---Why the other end lifts up:

When the pendulum is on the outside/top of a swing, it has lost all its energy, and gravity starts to pull it down. At this point it is weightlessto the other end (which taps up and down),  and the other end is in the down state.

Gravity works on the pendulum and pulls it down, gaining momentum/force whatever.

When it is at the center/bottom of its swing it has a downwards force equal to, or more than, its own weight, and the other end of the machine is now lighter and lifts up.

The pendulum then swings up and ends up at the start again.

---The other bit:

The next thing we have to ask is: does the up down motion added to the pendulum take/use some of the swing force acting on the pendulum? If it does, then the system is not over unity, as we have to put this energy back in with the input energy (i.e. input energy is not just factoring friction, but also the up down motion).

If it doesnt, then the system is overunity. Note that while the pendulum has the most force and pulls the other end up, as it swings along, the other end is pulled down by gravity and 'gives' energy back to the pendulum. So we could just have to add some more input energy for the resistance of friction/bearings etc..

---

Thats just my theory after a few hours on the peswiki and then finding this thread (e.g. reading things like the machie is most efficient when both ends are the same weight. I only flicked through 15 or so pages of this thread. Im going to build a small model with some chopsticks, paperclips, tape and rocks and see what happens.

Greeting from Japan

[hartiberlin]

@shruggedatlas:

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Misljenje%204%20-%20Matematicka%20analiza%20-%20Tosic.pdf

To all the skeptics,
this PDF file was written by:
Akademik Professor  Dr. Bratislav To?ic

Please point out here if you find some mathematical errors in it.
Otherwise don?t come here and always give us the same lame skeptical views...PLEASSSSEEEE !


There are replications under way right now that try to close the loop.

[WhiteFalcon]

I'm currently gathering parts to replicate this machine, I bought an old bike for $5...

I have two ideas to improve the machine...

1) Make the pendulum to swing perpendicular to the lever, so the same force would be applied to the lever when the pendulum swing from right to left than from left to right.  If you look carefully at Milkovic's machines, you may notice that the force is different when the pendulum swing from front to back than from back to front...

2) What if I make both end of the lever to be a hammer AND carrying a pendulum.  When pendulum A is a Bottom Dead Center, pendulum B would be at Top Dead Swing.  Will I gain more amplitude on the lever?  Since both ends of the lever now have a variable mass...  This I don't know... I'll try to see...

WF

[shruggedatlas]

@shruggedatlas:

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Misljenje%204%20-%20Matematicka%20analiza%20-%20Tosic.pdf

To all the skeptics,
this PDF file was written by:
Akademik Professor  Dr. Bratislav To?ic

Please point out here if you find some mathematical errors in it.
Otherwise don?t come here and always give us the same lame skeptical views...PLEASSSSEEEE !


There are replications under way right now that try to close the loop.

I will admit that I have no idea what that paper says, but I sincerely doubt it says there is a 12 to 1 energy gain.  I believe a 12 to 1 mechanical advantage, perhaps with the combination of the lever and the pendulum, but not a 12 to 1 energy gain.

As far as closing the loop - there is no way to make a pendulum create energy, and there is no way to make a lever create energy.  They both only give out what energy was put into them.  The lever allows a small force to lift a relatively heavy object, but at the cost of having to exert the small force over a longer distance than the heavy object actually lifts.  A pendulum doles out its energy slowly (via friction and air resistance) over the duration of its swing, but it cannot give out any more energy than what was originally exerted into lifting the pendulum in the first place.  There is nothing new here.  If someone was to close the loop on this, then it would mean that see-saws and pendulums never stop, but accelerate on their own (at a 12 to 1 energy gain).  But this is now how things work in this universe.

Am I missing something?  Is there really any more to this machine than a lever and a pendulum?

[shruggedatlas]

The next thing we have to ask is: does the up down motion added to the pendulum take/use some of the swing force acting on the pendulum? If it does, then the system is not over unity, as we have to put this energy back in with the input energy (i.e. input energy is not just factoring friction, but also the up down motion).

If it doesnt, then the system is overunity. Note that while the pendulum has the most force and pulls the other end up, as it swings along, the other end is pulled down by gravity and 'gives' energy back to the pendulum. So we could just have to add some more input energy for the resistance of friction/bearings etc..

You have thought about this and your analysis shows this!  It is easy to get confused discussing this device, because the lever affects the pendulum and vice versa.  But in the end, it is just a pendulum attached to one end of a see-saw.  Neither a pendulum nor a see-saw naturally accelerates, so there is not way to magically combine the two together and get an over-unity device.  In fact, any combination of the two can only decrease efficiency, because there are more parts in contact and therefore more friction.