Sounds too good to be true ?

As per vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCALAuUYy6c , 110 grams over 115 cm lifts 665g over 30 mm. Raised mass height is measured by inserting 30 mm wood plate under bob at highest point and leaving it there.

Just done some measurements with/ precision (.1 gr) scales. Protusion from 110 gr OB weight, raise by putting scales' plate under protusion. Lift to release position "3 o' clock'. Suspended weight over pulley still 665 grams. In spite of holding scales in hand so some tremor, maximum reading is 128 grams, minimum around 70, must be some angular stuff at work, plus fact that heavy bob moves pendulum arm in a direction which assists raise.
 
Irrespective of any angular hocus pocus, leverage or else going on during the operation, the end result, which I am standing very firmly by is : 110 gr losing 115 mm position of height causes 665 grams to rise 30 mm to err on the safe side, because it's 4).

Is that enough to relaunch the system ? Yes. More than enough. If the weight is just caught at height and sat on a stand, the system (eg pendulum arm, OB wheel) will swing away till keel, so you could argue that the end result is loss if you don't also capture pendulum at high point. However, by winding and spooling the tether, The system raise is undisputable.

The other vids of note already published are a "balanced" 2 ball setup with total bob mass of 366 grams)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QpdtV7X2VA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJtB8eUEtCk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVXNvtEEWY (in which preliminary conclusions : a mass of 110 grams gaining ke from a "pe loss" of 2 cm vertical is setting in movement a system weighing approx 1700 gram, w/o direct drive via chain or else. Balancing act. The 1700 odd composite mass via a line over pulley wheel is raising 183 grams over 4 cms from start point, vertically. Spinning the wheel at high revs is of no use. Even releasing it from 9 or 3 position gives no more motion than from 7:30 or 4:30. The reason it is not shown released from the lowest position is because I did the vid alone, so had to allow time for setting apparatus in motion, walking away and aiming camera, hitting "shoot" button on camera. Just look at the way the pendulum starts swinging when the OB wheel rotation hits the right "frequency/height" from 4h30 to 7 h 30.

These are very imperfect results, as tuning the system as regards length of componets, weights, diameters will yield more.

Please don't call this a "S2O oscillator or anything else. It is my invention, therefore with all due modesty I am calling it the MARCH pendulum.

NerzhDishual,

Yes, Aquitaine region. I don't think the system is really an oscillator, more of a pendulum which is capable of swinging to a greater height than it was released from. Even if it doesn't look like a pendulum.

Science amended? Probably. The problem I have is not so much with things like coe, but the way they are construed to exclude certain mechanical behaviours. The usual analogy : sit 10 kgs on a nail, nothing happens, 10 cm of travel to a 400 gram hammer for a total of 2 kgs on impact, the nail goes through the plank. Just an image. But fitting for this "open" device and developments on it which use timed conflict or accumulated force.

Best rgds 

@NicBordeaux,

Are you from Bordeaux ?

Yet another Veljko Milkovic (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm) effect, or what?
Decidedly, our "Official Science" should be amended. Should it not be?

Very Best

NerzhDishual

Hello nicbordeaux,

very intersting idea. You have uncouplet the two planes of inertia of both masses : the bob and the swinging Pendulum. This is not the case with the Milkovic - Penulum
Instantly when I saw your video I remembered a communication with Alan Cresswell long time ago who had this proposal in Diagram 21 on his website. If you implement a spring on which the small 110 gr-weight is attached - guided vertically - you might impove the output by providing an additional degree of freedom

http://www.unifiedtheory.org.uk/

good luck

Kator01

Thx for pointing that out. It's of course 115 mm loss of height of 110 grams as input, not 115 cm     .

The dia of the wheel is 230 mm, 1/2 corresponding to a release from 3 or 9 o' clock position must be approx 115 

Otherwise, I have an issue with the word "Overunity" or "OU". Conservation of Energy seem's ok except on the sub-atomic level with all those silly neutrinos and their family (rien ne se crée, rien ne se perd). In the case of this pendulum, all the energy can be accounted for. But the result is "anamolous". There is no creation of energy, just use of conflict and probably "harmonics" . A simple OB wheel on a stand has enough energy to make a full turn. It doesn't. Easy to conclude that it doesn't make a turn because of heat and noise detracting from the energy available. In fact, most of the missing energy is dispersed into the system as strain. Extra energy is available from gravity : the weight of the whole wheel, OB weight and stand is doing nothing, whereas it can be tapped. Just stick the assembly on some springs and see that gravity is acting on and potentially available from the entire weight. This is partly what the pendulum shows.

Hi Nic,

As per vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCALAuUYy6c , 110 grams over 115 cm lifts 665g over 30 mm. Raised mass height is measured by inserting 30 mm wood plate under bob at highest point and leaving it there.

Please correct the above, if input is 115 cm and output is only 30mm it is not over unity.
 
Regards
Nixon

Hello nic,

I understand. Another idea would be to have the weight-relations build according to the golden ratio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Given : small weight attached at the 553 gr-Wheel = X
          Weight of bobin to be lifted  = Y

Now: Total mass of swinging Pendulum ( 553 gr + X gr) in relation to the bigger weight 553 Gr = 1,61803
giving X = 341,77

and then same ration between all masses involved 553 gr + 341,77 gr + Ygr in relation to Ybobin gr = 1,61803

would give Ybobin = 552,99 gr

It is just one combination. Any other ideas ?

Regards

Kator01

Correct observation, I'm familiar with peq, as he now haunts bessler wheel forum. We've had some discussion about all this. His math is way over my head, but the results tend to go his way. I think that the way to achieve great height of the launched mass is a non-circular wheel because it's the way the tether is constrained which dictates the energy transfer/constraint of trajectory. Also, I've tested deflector boards to get the bouncy ball earlier into a strictly vertical path, and the results are surprising. Right now, part of the plan is to use the device discussed in this thread to move the wheel which flings. But only part, there are other interesting and less sociopath thing to do than put dents in the neighbour's van, shoot a bouncy ball at his window, and bust tiles on his roof. A nice understanding guy but he has reached the end of his tether as far as having his property damaged by superballs goes ...

Hi nic,

concerning your video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9igFhQnP38

very similar stuff here by user pequaide. I would suggest you start reading it from the beginning. I was involved in the discussion for some time.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.0

You are correct with your observation about the ball stopping and going in reverse. This happens when the tether is streched at its full length. This is what pequaide called the total impuls-transfer from the wheel to the fly-away-mass so that the flywheel will stop turning for a brief moment before the reversal action takes place.
If you increase the weigth of the ball and find the right ratio to the weight of the wheel.

Now, if you increase the weigth of the ball stepwise you will experience at some point a full-stop of the wheel before the reverse action occurs.

Impuls-transfer speeds up the ball-weight to such a degree that you have be very careful.
Pequaide mentioned that when the wheel stops, the balls - he was using steelballs - carry all the velocity and energy is increased.

Watch the window and thf roof of your neighbor :-) The tether might not withstand these forces.

Regards

Kator01

Thx, that is interesting, though doubt it can be made used of in the scale we build our "PM" devices on. But who knows, worth a try.

Here's an experiment I've done, results are very conclusive. At end of experiment a lot more water is raised than mass losses height when all has subsided and the machine is at start position once again, ready to relaunch. Now looking at less open to discussion raising of solids, and will try different materials ;-)

Nick

ps: sorry for the ersatz German... The next drawing should be the mass raised from the water. Not necessary. Used a tuna tin filled with water and sealed, dropped into and lifted from a tin of tomatoes... by the device. The displacement is just as you'd expect, and the raised water is in the tray.

Hi Kator,

The device is not designed for continuous operation, it's a "one shot" with an aim to proving that raise of com is possible with gravity power (yes, heresy . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UXG2x18L7E shows the thing more or less tuned so that the weight is at maximum on the return stroke after release. it doesn't show raise of height of overall system mass. That will be another vid. This simple incarnation without any weights could maybe be associated with the weighted device ?

The previos vids show "unloaded" as the load is part of the system. It does not go chaotic, there are as you'd expect two "cycles" or manifestation of energy : one the pendulum swings, two the ke shifts to the wheel which oscillates back and forth through about 150°, the pendulum wheel stops swinging and the energy is manifest as increased swing of the arm. After about three of these cycles, entropy kills it. Without the weights, it will run longer of course, and the behavior will show double pendulum type "unpredictability".

When you replace the billiard ball or steel weights with a modified tuna can that has a relative density of 1.2 (low) and let that sink into a water filled can of peas you have disposed of (canned peas are disgusting, even the cats won't eat them) there is a braking effect: if the can is on the left and you have a balancing weight on the right, the right hand weight starts thinking it is stronger so it whips the tuna piston can from the water. Therefore, I used just one weight (the tuna can) under a billiard ball weight. It makes getting the "piston" into the cylinder a bit hit and miss, but it works. Optimization would be a rigid linkage from the "billiard ball" weight to the 1.2 density can, and a much much larger can, as big as the system will handle, and that will depend on the weight and ength of the pendulum arm. Or a compression spring on the other side for the opposing weight to work against and stop it mucking about with the piston can.

So, it is all very logical, no black magic.

The reason for these dumb devices ? If you are going to try for PM, it seems normal to first prove that you can get greater pe at end of cycle than start. Then you need to find a way of getting that "extra pe" in the right place to relaunch the system if that is at all possible.

Working on one which locks itself in the "high" position after the first swing out (release 3, capture 9). The thing works great, now it's a question of seeing how much raise in com can be had by varying weights, dia, lengths etc. 

Hello Nic,

very good.. and you are really funny with this mix-max of languages
Now how can one stabelize a continous operation of this pendulum so that it does not do chaotic ?
Question : In the vids before lifted weigth was only under load of gravity. How does the pendulum behave, if there is an addition work-load attached lik you di it with pumping up water ?

Kator01