Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2237919 times)

Charlie_V · « **Reply #1065 on:** August 11, 2009, 11:00:22 PM »

OH thanks I guess a picture is worth a thousand words! haha

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1066 on:** August 12, 2009, 08:15:43 AM »

His top orange bar is what I called crossbar. by lack of technical English vocabulary.

TechStuf · « **Reply #1067 on:** August 12, 2009, 06:35:48 PM »

A force meter would tell the story. Record the force over distance of both input and output. It appears that there is more out than in, certainly not 12 times, but there is much to consider in the deceptively simple demonstration.

I'm certain that the powers that be are tickled that most see relatively little 'pay off' from pursuing such simple ways to overhaul the status quo.

Continued promotion of overcomplication in all meaningful areas of life keep them assured that 'might makes right'.

They 'might' be wrong.

Nabo00o · « **Reply #1068 on:** August 12, 2009, 06:45:48 PM »

Yes, because this thing can take many forms, and can become quite complicated or sophisticated if we want to. But the principle is already used all over the world, so I doubt there is much anyone can do to stop it once it's underlying principle is explained throughly, that of the inverted parametric oscillator.

Btw many interesting results appear if you G-search: parametric oscillator "free energy"

Julian

Merg · « **Reply #1069 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:56:59 AM »

There was a paper considering Milkovic's oscillator as a parametric oscillator few months ago:

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Aleksandar_Slavkovic_Milkovic's_Two_Stage_Oscillator_As_a_Parametric_Oscillator.pdf

Nabo00o · « **Reply #1070 on:** August 13, 2009, 10:40:26 AM »

Thank you Merg, I'm reading that paper right now and its getting really interesting!
Also, the parametric oscillator seems to link another generator I thought of making with the 2-stage one, it uses a varying capacitance where a rotor with special plates passes through 2 or more parallel connected capacitors, alternating their C and V values and thus makes a current go back and forth between them. The thing is that the plates are first dragged in by the caps but must then be dragged out again, resulting to a net zero work done. But the capacitors do still circulate current....

Science is interesting

Julian

Merg · « **Reply #1071 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:21:16 PM »

Quote from: Nabo00o on August 13, 2009, 10:40:26 AM

Thank you Merg, I'm reading that paper right now and its getting really interesting!

So, what do you say about this paper?

onthecuttingedge2005 · « **Reply #1072 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:54:30 PM »

It is just a transfer of leverage, the stored amount of energy remains the same as any other type of stored energy, it gets depleted.

Don't be fooled by the illusion of leverage as being OU.

I could move an entire mountain of weight with a simple but tiny clock motor and a great deal of leverage but it would take me a very very long time to move it.

You could however move a super large magnet through an induction coil with very little effort with just a slight amount of force if you use enough leverage but you would have to remember you are sacrificing speed over length on the lever. if you can find an enormously powerful field magnet then the small amount of movement in the coil might be enough to generate more electrical potential than what is used on the long end of the stick.

no promises on that.

Jerry

Charlie_V · « **Reply #1073 on:** August 27, 2009, 12:16:29 AM »

Quote

It is just a transfer of leverage, the stored amount of energy remains the same as any other type of stored energy, it gets depleted.

Actually, it is not just the transfer of leverage. It appears this way because he is using a lever. If you keep the pendulum's pivot point stationary, there is no damping other than friction of the pendulum.

The main point I see in this device (even if implemented wrong) is that you are RE-using energy stored in the pendulum. Assuming the pivot point does not move, the initial energy placed into the pendulum does not leave the system. Friction produces energy "radiation" so that you must maintain a small input of energy to stop the pendulum from swinging down.

Now lets say you alter Milkovic's design so that the pivot point does not move. Gravity will try to take the stored energy in the pendulum and change the frequency of the pendulum across its period. So that starting from a 90 degree position (90 degrees from the rest position) and moving to the 0 degree position (0 degrees being the rest position), the frequency of the pendulum will shift from high to low. From 0 degrees back to 90, the frequency shifts from low to high. This happens at twice the frequency of the pendulum, so that the system functions as a parametric oscillator. The only energy being lost here is friction. Placing a load properly on the altered Milkovic design will only stop the pendulum's frequency shift, allowing the pendulum to swing at a constant frequency equal to the frequency at the 90 degree position. The average amount of energy required to keep the pendulum swinging is the same whether the device is loaded or not.

From the standpoint of energy input/output, it should take less input than the output because if you ignore the initial input to lift the pendulum to the 90 degree height, the energy to keep it swinging is much less. Since the pendulum is not damped from the loading, it may be possible to feed the energy back to keep the pendulum swinging.

Quote

You could however move a super large magnet through an induction coil with very little effort with just a slight amount of force if you use enough leverage but you would have to remember you are sacrificing speed over length on the lever. if you can find an enormously powerful field magnet then the small amount of movement in the coil might be enough to generate more electrical potential than what is used on the long end of the stick.

This will not work because the leverage is directly effected by the counter force produced when the coil is loaded. So it will become harder to push the magnet through the coil. In effect, the lever system is damped, regardless of leverage.

In the Milkovic example, the pendulum is not damped by the load, and so it can be fed back. Unfortunately, Milkovic's device is not properly designed so it will not be able to function in this way. We have to alter it!

FreeEnergy · « **Reply #1074 on:** August 27, 2009, 03:38:42 AM »

Charlie_V
nice explanation!

Merg · « **Reply #1075 on:** August 27, 2009, 04:59:10 AM »

Quote from: Charlie_V on August 27, 2009, 12:16:29 AM

In the Milkovic example, the pendulum is not damped by the load, and so it can be fed back. Unfortunately, Milkovic's device is not properly designed so it will not be able to function in this way. We have to alter it!

So, what is your suggestion how to alter it?? How should we redesign this pendulum-lever system?

onthecuttingedge2005 · « **Reply #1076 on:** August 27, 2009, 05:03:08 AM »

Quote from: Charlie_V on August 27, 2009, 12:16:29 AM

Actually, it is not just the transfer of leverage. It appears this way because he is using a lever. If you keep the pendulum's pivot point stationary, there is no damping other than friction of the pendulum.

The main point I see in this device (even if implemented wrong) is that you are RE-using energy stored in the pendulum. Assuming the pivot point does not move, the initial energy placed into the pendulum does not leave the system. Friction produces energy "radiation" so that you must maintain a small input of energy to stop the pendulum from swinging down.

Now lets say you alter Milkovic's design so that the pivot point does not move. Gravity will try to take the stored energy in the pendulum and change the frequency of the pendulum across its period. So that starting from a 90 degree position (90 degrees from the rest position) and moving to the 0 degree position (0 degrees being the rest position), the frequency of the pendulum will shift from high to low. From 0 degrees back to 90, the frequency shifts from low to high. This happens at twice the frequency of the pendulum, so that the system functions as a parametric oscillator. The only energy being lost here is friction. Placing a load properly on the altered Milkovic design will only stop the pendulum's frequency shift, allowing the pendulum to swing at a constant frequency equal to the frequency at the 90 degree position. The average amount of energy required to keep the pendulum swinging is the same whether the device is loaded or not.

From the standpoint of energy input/output, it should take less input than the output because if you ignore the initial input to lift the pendulum to the 90 degree height, the energy to keep it swinging is much less. Since the pendulum is not damped from the loading, it may be possible to feed the energy back to keep the pendulum swinging.

This will not work because the leverage is directly effected by the counter force produced when the coil is loaded. So it will become harder to push the magnet through the coil. In effect, the lever system is damped, regardless of leverage.

In the Milkovic example, the pendulum is not damped by the load, and so it can be fed back. Unfortunately, Milkovic's device is not properly designed so it will not be able to function in this way. We have to alter it!

C'est la vie

Jerry

Charlie_V · « **Reply #1077 on:** August 27, 2009, 05:08:39 AM »

Quote

So, what is your suggestion how to alter it?? How should we redesign this pendulum-lever system?

Haha, that's a good question. I have no idea!

tagor · « **Reply #1078 on:** August 27, 2009, 07:16:21 AM »

Quote from: Charlie_V on August 27, 2009, 12:16:29 AM

In the Milkovic example, the pendulum is not damped by the load, and so it can be fed back.

IT is false !!
very bad science !!

exnihiloest · « **Reply #1079 on:** August 27, 2009, 09:45:27 AM »

Quote from: Charlie_V on August 27, 2009, 12:16:29 AM

...
In the Milkovic example, the pendulum is not damped by the load, and so it can be fed back.
...

It is damped by the load.
When at the lowest position, an ordinary pendulum mass has lost its potential energy. It can regain it by continuing its movement and transforming again its kinetic energy into potential energy, by moving up to the same height it was starting from.

But the Milkovic's pendulum is different. When the pendulum mass is at the lowest position, the fulcrum is at a lower position due to the movement of the lever. The pendulum mass has lost a supplementary potential energy. In order the pendulum mass to regain this potential energy, the lever must raise again the pendulum fulcrum by restoring the energy it acquired from the lowering of the pendulum mass (that one due to the lowering of the fulcrum). If energy is consumed at the other end of the lever, the lever will lack energy to restore the position of the fulcrum at the same height.

The Milkovic's pendulum is really a parametric pendulum with a pumping function. Nevertheless in such a system, the energy is always conserved, it is just shifted from the pumping system at the pumping frequency to the pumped system at the pumped frequency (for example, search for "parametric amplifier". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator. They were used in the 60's to amplify SHF signal received from big parabolic satellite antennas, by pumping a variable capacity of an oscillating LC circuit and thus transfering the energy from the pumping frequency to the signal frequency).

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2237919 times)

Charlie_V

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

Cloxxki

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

TechStuf

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

Nabo00o

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

Merg

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

Nabo00o

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

Merg

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

onthecuttingedge2005

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

Charlie_V

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

FreeEnergy

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

Merg

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

onthecuttingedge2005

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

Charlie_V

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

tagor

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

exnihiloest

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