Storing mechanical energy in either X, Y, Z transference directions even with leverage, it is still storing energy, the device just uses the stored energy more efficiently but it will not produce more energy than what is stored. that's why it stops.

it doesn't matter how elaborate you make a stored energy device, it by any other name is still a stored energy device.

Jerry

Then why don't we just stop our search for free energy all together, after all we are just trying manipulate/store/transform energy in one way or another, but all the same basic laws still apply.

Ultimately it is not efficient energy storage we are utilizing here.
Just as with all other inventions of the like we are not trying to create energy but make more of it accessible for use, there is a conservation, only it is in a way which Newton would never understand. He wouldn't even be close to understand the present ideas of particle physics and bent space-time.

There are very few here of those who have talked so loud about how they "know" that this machine operates, but who still also mention its strikingly reverse relationship towards any load placed on it.
This fact alone will quickly make most of you realize why this machine can go far above unity, in terms of what you put in versus environmental input(COP).

If you build this thing up in resonance, giving it more and more energy stored in the pendulum up to a point (other designs can increase with practically no limit), you will as opposed to the common scenario not drain the oscillation of the energy equal to that which you put in, this is because there is only losses (mainly) due to the displacement of the pendulum axis. Because of this single fact, force used to push a load *WILL NOT* equal the force exerted back on the pendulum, to decelerate it.

If you can use your mind you do not even need to build a model to see this, just imagine the machine first without a load, then with a load and lastly with a maximum load.
This is in my mind a scientific demonstration device which will show (when properly constructed) how you can actually brake the normally assumed Newtons third law of motion.

Btw this machine is not needed in order to prove this, you can easily create an inertial propulsion device which would create a constant acceleration without any mass leaving, you would just need to place it in a box and the box would move.

I can promise you, there is much more to be heard about this machine! As a demonstration device, it will show how resonance will finally be connected with free energy, as it is the natural way to amplify power.

Wish you all the best,
Julian

Nabo00o,
How do you visualize a load being put on the pendulum(s), where the primary pendulum does not lose amplitude? Surely, this will require the most advanced of timings, and aims?
So far, I've only seen demonstrations where the primary did require further well-timed (albeit gentle taps of) input.
Or IS the 2-stage oscillator already what I am asking for? It still requires a high initial displacement of the primary, and sees swing amplitude reduction be converted into a smaller ampliture vertical pendulum, be it if equal or greater weight.

If you see a way (and/or specific moment) to extract work from the 2-stage pendulum, while positively enhancing the amplitude of the primary (via benificial mounting point displacement), I think this is the best of stages to propose it.
I, for one, am all ears.

Regards,
J

Jerry, well I strongly believe that nothing (energy or information) can ever be created without a source, so my point was that this also goes for any other form of mechanical or electrical device, non can ever be true over unity, but they can use the sources already existing.

@Cloxxki, I didn't say that we could extract energy from the swinging pendulum without any loss, but I am saying that this machine will only make those losses a matter distance and displacement, not of force.
This is of huge importance if we can increase the continuous force which this pendulum exerts by swinging it in resonance with its natural cycle, which is what we do when we push it each time.

Since the now much stronger force will not be blocked by an equal large force every time we make it do work, we will in effect have a mechanical amplifier which do not need its working energy from us, in principle it only needs our triggering signal if we make it efficient enough.
This along with many other experiments proves to me that that energy is in reality nothing else but different combinations of information, structured in such a way as to create the reactions that we are used to, but they will only behave this way when the information combinations are in the relationship which we are used to, say in the physical world on Earth.

This in itself is of course just a theory or an idea, it is not the reason to why I believe the 2-stage oscillator works. Also to answer your question, we do not need an extremely accurate triggering system to make use of this amplifier, other designs exists which could simplify its operation tremendously. It would also at the same time make the friction and inefficiencies close to zero...

@Paul-R
Paul, I was just trying to make a point, because it isn't that simple.
And I did learn about T. Bearden a while ago, his ideas or more precisely, his work to combine several already existing works in the different fields did really open my mind.
And my main point was that all energy is conserved, but energy exists not only in different forms but does also enter from somewhere, this somewhere as you know is the virtual particle flux.

This is actually very important to include in the explanation of this device, or else some could actually have believed that this machine got its energy from nowhere!


But I do believe that the 2-stage oscillator is not only reserved to the mechanical Milkociv device, this principle does also fit perfectly with sound wave resonators and the Rotorverter (lately a transverter has also been made). They are all using the two-stage separation of oscillations to invoke a conditions which allows an amplification of its original source. I belive in time this will be much more clear to us...

Julian

The interesting thing about Mr. Milkovic's design is that it is a form of parametric oscillator being used in the opposite way.  Most physicists think of parametric oscillations as a child on a swing.   The swing must have a small amplitude and the child's center of mass change adds energy to the swing causing the amplitude to increase.  So, you take a small amount of energy and store it in the oscillation of the swing (energy storage).

The problem with the child on a swing is that if you were to add a load to the swing, the swing would damp.  And the energy input by the child would simply get used 1 to 1.  Mr. Milkovic's design is actually the opposite of that.  In this case the swing is already at max amplitude, you input a small amount of energy to keep the swing going (since there is a portion of the energy that will radiate due to losses).  Centripetal force is what produces the parametric oscillation.  It is this parametric oscillation that you load. 

In the case of the swing, it would be like loading the child instead of the swing (which for the child's case would not be very good).  So you load the child, and keep the swing at max amplitude (the child ends up doing the work).  Yet in this case, it is a natural force you are taking advantage of (not a child) and the amplitude of this natural force is directly related to the mass and gravity (2mg actually).  The problem that Mr. Milkovic has in his design is that the pivot point also moves.  This produces a dampening effect, causing the energy of the pendulum to radiate faster than it normally would.  Still, this shows promise since the entire concept is backward from conventional thought.

@Nabo00o,

I think the most efficient way would be to not allow the pivot point to move at all.  But to do this you'd need a different design since this MUST happen in Milkovic's system for it to operate. 

Yes without the pivot point moving, it acts like a spring pendulum operating in the parametric regime.  If you can damp only the spring, it won't damp the oscillation of the pendulum.  This is because damping the spring causes the system to act more like a normal pendulum, the energy staying in one frequency.  The parametric oscillation tries to distribute the energy across a range of frequencies.  Its a very interesting phenomenon since it appears that if you can pull energy from the spring of a spring pendulum, the pendulum won't damp.  This may be the "holy grail" of action without reaction.  Yet energy conservation will not be violated since the total (including initial energy input) all sums to zero.

What if the 1st stage is mounted from a spring, but the spring is restricted in its freedom of movement, i.e. having a maximum length? The peak of the CF pull would not go to the spring, but to the crossbar. The outer parts of it's swing will be spring-affected. I think we'd not want the spring to move at all laterally either.
Alternatively, the crossbar could be split up, and an eccentrical gear system doing the torque transfer.

Or, what if we could pully remove or even reverse the (small) horizontal displacement of the 1st stage via a smart box as a pivot? Acute dampening effect, or increased efficiency?

I'll try to explain. In my simple experiments I used a spring with a weight instead of a pendulum.
Both the spring and the pendulum is a harmonic oscillator, which changes from kinetic to potential energy in every cycle, so they are pretty much identical. 

So I attached the spring to the hinge as normally done with the pendulum, but I also used springs to keep the hinge from falling to either side of the fulcrum support. The result was that when pendulum was in motion it oscillated back and forth with the hinge following the same pattern. If I put a hand on the hinge, both it and the pendulum would be dampened very quickly.

So it is not like directly connecting a pendulum to a spring (or a spring to a spring), but very close since the hinge is attached at both ends to the base with the other springs. (this is the best way I can explain it, it is not as complex as it might sound )


I can say that the hydraulic idea is as direct a feedback system as it can get. It is about using the high pressure in water that we get when we spin a bottle or pipe of water fast enough around, and then use that pressure directly through nozzles which will aid in the rotor's speed.
You can see two treads partly related to it here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4202-bernoulli-principal-vortex.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4348-water-turbine-project.html

There will be a loss of speed in the rotor just as in the pendulum when the water leaves the central axis, but it is only related to distance, and if this rotor is built up to high enough speed creating a huge centrifugal pressure, we can use a relative small nozzle and still create a powerful propulsion, aiding the rotors rotation. This is also a direct analogue of increasing the load of the milkovic pendulum.


Btw sorry if this was more then you wanted, I have a tendency to write a lot more when it is something I'm interested in

Have a great day,
Julian

Oh I'm not really that good at explaining stuff, this should straight things up.