Concerning actual electrical overunity, Milkovic did the test using the hand flashlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8

He showed that using only one of the squeeze flashlights and moving the pendulum with it was rather easy to do, and that on the other end 9 squeeze flashlights where being lit up.

The above video with the flashlights and the video with the pump that you all have been talking about certainly look like overunity...

I know it might be hard to consider a strictly mechanical OU device, as it was/is for me, but it seems it might now be in our midst.

Time will most certainly tell...

That is a terrible experiment.

Have you considered that the experimenter is pushing the pendulum with more force than is required to activate the flashlight in hand, and it is that additional energy that is making the experiment possible.

Also, the duration of light is entirely ignored.  The flashlight in the hand is squeezed over the entire time require to push the pendulum (say half-second), while the lights on the other end light up for a much shorter time than that.  And often, not all of the lights even light up.

When I came across across Veljko Mircovic's work it intrigued me and  I did a little work on the subject. I went as far as building the device. These are my thoughts and observations on the matter

The things that stand out is that he comes across as a sincere man who appears to have stumbled across a phenomenon that traditional science is at a loss to explain. From his demonstrations one could easily come to the conclusion that Newtonian physics do not apply where his arrangement is concerned. That in itself is a dangerous road to travel as it stirs up emotions amongst physicists that, as irrelevant as they should be in science, are nevertheless a very real part of human inter-reaction. Right or wrong, people have a tendency to defend whatever they consider their turf to be.

So what does he do? Veljko Milkovic puts a pendulum on a balance beam with a counter weight on the other side to put the arm into equilibrium and then gets the pendulum to swing. The result is an oscillatory movement of the beam.



So far so good, that is what one would expect. He then claims that the mechanism does not work in reverse. He moves the balance beam from the opposite side up and down with the pendulum at a standstill and the pendulum does not swing. Case proved, Newton's third law is wrong. There is no equal and opposite reaction!

He even has a letter from Peter Lindemann D.Sc. to prove it. Lindemann goes as far as stating that something like Milkovic's discovery only comes around every three hundred years.

Sorry guys, but this is not a valid demonstration.

The demonstration is flawed because Milkovic does not truly reverse the process. If he were to agitate the beam at the natural frequency of the pendulum in even strokes he would soon find out that the pendulum would start to swing and gather momentum as he was feeding energy into it.

If the pendulum at all time was perfectly perpendicular and the fulcrum at all times at that axis the pendulum would only move up and down as there was no energy available to move it sideways. But such is not the case here.

There is horizontal movement, admittedly small, but it is there. That is why it takes a while before the pendulum can store enough energy to exhibit this. Inertia has yet to build up to show noticeable levels of movement.

Milkovic's demonstrations are far too short and uncontrolled to demonstrate this.

Let me explain:



The pendulum's fulcrum at the end of the balance beam moves in an arc. As the balance beam goes up the fulcrum's position relative to the pendulum is displaced horizontally as well as vertically.. That means that the pendulum is no longer perpendicular to the earth's centre of gravity. That also means that it has to find a new position.

As the pendulum develops inertia when it is forced into the new position it swings past the natural point of equilibrium and will only return when the energy that has been fed to it is expended. But while it is doing that the balance beam is moving back putting the pendulum even more out of equilibrium, but now in the opposite direction.

So the pendulum swings back to repeat the process over and over again with increased amplitude as long as the introductory impulses are of the same frequency.

The only things that will stop the pendulum behaving in this manner is when the agitation stops or when the agitation is out of step with the natural frequency of the pendulum's oscillations in which case we have created forces that are out of phase with each other and therefore cancel each other out.

Consider the following:

You have a balance beam, but this time you have on each end a pendulum of exactly the same length. This is important since the pendulum's frequency in this case is solely dependent on its length. You now give one pendulum a push and it begins to oscillate. The balance beam behaves as before, going up and down at twice the frequency of the pendulum.

What do you think happens after a while?

This is one of the classical experiments in physics because the effects are unexpected.

Say we have given the right pendulum a push. As it swings there is a noticeable diminishing of amplitude. The left pendulum now starts to pick up momentum, which increases with every loss of inertia on the other side. After a while the right pendulum will come to a standstill with the left one in full swing. Slowly the right pendulum will start to pick up momentum as the left one now starts losing energy. After a while, when the left pendulum's energy is spent the right one is in full swing again. The process keeps repeating itself until all energy is spent through friction, drag and heat. If there were no losses the process would carry on forever.

All this flies right into the face of what Milkovic and Lindemann are saying.

So all this Hoo-Haa about Newton being wrong and that the Milkovic device proves it is a lot of crap.

Try the experiment with a coathanger and two pendula of equal length suspended from it on opposite sides, give one of them a push and observe.

Hans von Lieven

1200 liters per hour is 20 liters per minute, the equivalent of two standard buckets of water. There is no way a pump of this nature can do this, maybe half that but no more. Have a look in the pictures how thin the stream really is. You need a stream of water a lot better than that to fill even one bucket in one minute. Try it at home if you don't believe me.

This is NOT an independent replication by Miroslav Zupkov as claimed. The device was built for Milkovic who has been demonstrating it since 2002 at least. Miroslav Zupkov is Milkovic's offsider. If you watch some of his other movies you can see Milkovic introducing him as his associate.

At a 5 meter depth with say 500 liters per hour it does not look all that good anymore, does it?

Hi Hans,
to me the water stream coming out of pump looks okay and I can believe
that it is really 1200 Liters per hour.

But even if it would be just 500 Liters at 5 Meters deepth, that would require with an ideal
pump already 6,94 Watts.
But as the pump is not optimal and has lots of friction, I guess you would
need at least 10 Watts all the time.

But the guy never puts in 10 Watts with his arm.
As I calculated it is more like only around 1 to 2 Watts at maximum...

You also neglect, that one arm of the see-saw levers is longer, so it has
already a mechanical advantage.

Man - what a thread!!  Took hours to read it all.  GOOD STUFF  

Is it COP>1 ?  Sure seems to be more work done ie. pumping water than energy input ie. hand flick.

The believers make some great arguments - as do the skeptics.

12:1 ?  2:1 would great.  No matter the case - I agree the problem comes with the irregularity of the pulses and syncing them up to create a working OU system.  Lot's of cool ideas presented. 

(I like Hans' airpump diagram  )

At this point - I believe OU could be possible with his device - just a matter of engineering the loop??  Wish the inventor showed some good measurements.....
AND wish we could read some of his patents in full....

Anyone have English versions of his full patents relating to these devices?? 


CH

Hans - (or anyone) 

I've tried to implement a "spiral" cog like this... always results in too much friction as well as a "braking effect" on the transition.
Any recommendations on an ideal way to do this?  Materials to use?  etc?  Have you implemented this design component before?  Successfully?

Many thanks in advance,

CH

I watched the video Universal Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier again - and it seems to me that the part where this diagram is shown is something like what is copied from internet - I noticed some letters, more diagrams, printed copy of peswiki article, printed copy of this overunity forum topic... so probably this diagram is also something copied from the web...

I tried some google search and I found this forum with the same diagram and Italian description on that diagram that cannot be clearly seen in the video:
http://energierinnovabili.forumcommunity.net/?t=4759206&st=75

More directly:

I'm trying to move the pendulum from the 6 o'clock position by 45 degrees to the right applying the spiral cog to the pendulum support.  As such - attaching a bearing to the pendulum "strut" is no good as the angle changes and frustrates proper contact - there by the need to have bearing/bearings on the "spiral" of the cog.  How to reduce the friction/impact of the spiral on the pendulum "strut"??