So said that the lever can't move instantaneously when the pendulum is on its exact vertical position. If it can not move instantaneous, it would then take a defined time period to move.

So, then the theory of your illustration (movement in an instant) is not valid, because of the time period in order to move the mass of the lever and of the bob. And this opens all doors to a completely different outcome, meaning the theory obviously does not match the reality.

Inertia in an electric circuit is prevalent,  Inductance is your prime example of inertia,  odd..?? no, not in a symmetrical universe

Is the universe symmetrical? As far as I know, time is not symmetrical. A action in a forward played video makes sense, but when the video is played in reverse it make no sense at all.

Actually, Kapanaze claims he gets surplus energy from the course of time itself.

This no longer the correct understanding om how to see current (e.g. electron flow).   

Then magnetic fields do no longer influence electrons and how they move or not move? Completely new physics! This is strange indeed.

If you want to work out a specific problem, there are many valid scientific calculation formulas for that pendulum-lever device.

The formulas on the Milkovic website say that it works in theory, but the tricky point is to do it practically. At least when it comes to a self-runner. So the Milkovic formula (see below) is valid or not? What is velocity 1 and velocity 2?

The radio configuration you are referring to is only suitable for a low freq receiver (AM ~ 1Mhz) with very limited selectivity.

To make that configuration work on higher frequency as used today would be close to impossible.

I always thought higher frequency is more suitable for transmitting energy. An inverter power supply is smaller than a power supply working with a 50Hz transformer at the same rating.

Each answer creates two new question, I guess.

...........................
.................................
Each answer creates two new question, I guess.

It sure does !, Red

The only thing here in the forums that is clear is that nothing is ever clear.

Is it clear, that the lever-pendulum device works as claimed (more energy out than in), or is it clear that this can't work?

Is it clear, that a free energy device is generally possible, or is it clear that such a thing never can be constructed?

Is it clear, that v1 and v2 in the formula refers to the velocity of the pendulum when it swings up and down, or is this the velocity of the pivot when it moves up and down, or both?

Clear is just one thing: To me it looks sometimes strangely like as if one wants to rewrite the physics books, not because of the discovery of free energy, but to hide the possibility of its discovery.

Where is there any energy out?  Maybe you would be so kind as to show net external work being done by your favorite two cycle pendulum.  Then we can compare that work performed to the input work and test your over unity claim.

Here it is, in plain view: Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier

»You can see that the output energy, in general, is much larger than the input energy.«

I can see it. No problem with that.

LOL, Good for you.  So please be so kind as to state the input and output power and how you obtain your values.  I see a guy pushing on a machine and some LEDs blinking.

Further I can see, that the mass of the lever appears to be larger than the mass of the pendulum. What could this indicate? Is this perhaps necessary in order to get it to work correctly? A small pendulum moves a massive lever?

So, energy of one generator flashlight in, and energy of four to five generator flashlights out. Yes, that's my favorite two cycle pendulum.

If that is the best, then it establishes the whole idea as being pretty useless.

If 1190% efficiency is useless, then - I'm afraid - it is useless by all means. Measurement with an oscilloscope

A small weight - the pendulum - pushes a heavy weight - the lever - constantly over its tipping point. I think that's the basic principle behind this, resulting in a coefficient of performance (η) of 11.9 (or maybe more). If the COP of that device is > 1 then what are the defining conditions for that? The mass of the lever perhaps? The greater the mass the greater the COP, because more mass means more gravity power?

Mass = inertia, inertia = inductance - I have to think about this ... 

No output = zero efficiency.

I was curious to see what had happened to this thread.


I wasn't surprised to see that it had gone wildly off topic before it petered out.


You have to admit that RAR gave it their all. 


I think it must hold the record for magnificent failure. Steorn was rather pathetic
by comparison.


My current black swan option in Mooie Energie. I notice they have started up a
subsidiary in Italy.