It's right. But Omnibus pretends he can. It is like proving that Krishna exists, using the bible.   

Wrong analogy. Typical when someone doesn't have a clue.

Maybe he has something rational in mind but it isn't getting across. See if he get here in this forum to explain what his idea really is.

The only thing we can do is to send him an e-mail from the contact he left in the paper.
If I get any comment I'll post here.

Hi Andrea
Contrarily to the other paper that I had debunked (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Veljko_Milkovic_Kinetic_Energy_and_Overunity.pdf), this one has no math. It is just successions of fuzzy affirmations without any proof. Thus like Euclideas, we can easily dismiss it because "what is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".

Nevertheless here is a general consideration. Marjanovic bases his "theory" on the "idea of using
gravity shield for gravity energy extraction (if the shield was ever invented)." (sic).
It has already been proved by physicists that even if gravity was "shieldable", it would not lead to free energy or perpetual motion. The reason is obvious: the gravity flux is conservative. To understand it, we don't even need the proof from high level physicists by their flux-conservative formalism. Gravity force is a 1/r² force, like the electric force. The math which applies to the gravity force works also for the electric force, we have just to replace F=m*g by F=q*E and the masses by electric charges. The difference is that we can shield the electric field. So a perpetual motion based on Marjanovic's idea but using an electric field could be easily built: for example a vertical wheel charged on its circumference, above a static electric field which would be shielded under one half-side of the wheel. The wheel would be perpetually unbalanced, yet it doesn't work for the same reason the electric field is conservative as the gravity field (you can't switch off field lines, a shield only guides them).
Moreover OU is not demonstrated in Milkovic's pendulum. With an incredible "12 times more output than input" it would be very easy to loop it and make it self-sustainable. No one succeeded.
It follows that Marjanovic's "theory of gravity" is meaningless verbosity based on no fact.

Hello exnihiloest, I've read carefully your message. You say that in all this paper there is no math, and it's quite true, except for a formula. The author says : "Potential energy of the pendulum raised to height "h",  is m * g * h". Then, he focus on the pendulum raised to 90 degrees: "..pivot point O feels no force in position 1 or position 5. For it, it is the same as if pendulum lost its mass m or gravity acceleration g became zero". We can try it, this is easily verifiable. The result is that if we have a "g=0" effect, the other bob of the oscillator should fall to the ground. This is also easily verifiable. Have you seen this part of the paper?

So, what does it means? Please note that this isn't a proof of overunity , but it's a key to (maybe) understand the behavior of this machine. It's a new point of view, I think, and maybe if it would appropriately developed it could lead to something good.

About your statements on conservative fields, I don't have enough knowledge of electric field so I can't agree or disagree with those concepts. I just want to remember you that this part of forum is thought for people that hope that the gravity could be used positively, in the future. And they hope this thing well knowing that no one until today has extract anything from the conservative field of gravity. Ok?

BTW, I also think that this forum is a place in which people speak of overunity and the way of reach it. This could be a bit crazy, and maybe could not guide to anything, this is obvious. But all this people is doing it freely and with expense of their money, and above all they do it with no offense for anyone. I don't know if Marjanovic read this forum, but he is also studying this machine without remuneration. So, we can refute his theory, but we can't denigrate him. I really don't understand the users that denigrate, like you do in your posts. What is the meaning of your behavior? Just rudeness, I fear. 
 

With all due respect, that is not true. I have shown conclusively production of energy "out of nothing", that is, the possibility to have spontaneous displacement under the action of conservative forces. This is production of energy without depleting pre-existing energy sources.

Marjanovic may have something along these lines but at this point it isn't at all clear what his point is.

Only you are convinced of this.

What I seem to get, is that you calculated torque from a central axis, which I'm afraid is less relevant with the weight partically "off" the wheel, and the rest of the cycle the exle being partially disconnected as well.
If it's so sure there is OU, it's a matter of using some low friction material, building the darn thing, and placing it in a vacume chamber. Tap it, and it will spin right up.

Why are you saying this? You have admitted more than once that you are not quakified in these matters. What is this desire in people not versed in the matters at hand to express opinions? Maybe you somehow rise In your own eyes and feel important this way? I don't know, this has become an epidemic. The ease to type posts helps, I guess.

Eh, OmniBot...

You cannot help yourself, can you?

WHERE CAN WE SEE THAT PROOF OF YOURS(!!!), "that OU HAS BEEN SHOWN (by You, of course) CONCLUSIVELY, BEYOND ANY REASON OF A DOUBT..."

"By the way, OU isn't 2 + 2 = 5. That's a wrong understanding as to what OU is."

Lol.. Ah, maybe 1+1=3, or 1+2=4?
It's quite obvious that you don't know what you're talking about....

I think for some time now that YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE NOT "QUAKIFIED" for (actually,) anything...

If you'll not show that proof of yours (OU beyond any reason of a doubt..etc...), bear the consequences...

Btw, I would like to hear your description of what "OU" really means, in your opinion....

Hello exnihiloest, I've read carefully your message. You say that in all this paper there is no math, and it's quite true, except for a formula. The author says : "Potential energy of the pendulum raised to height "h",  is m * g * h". Then, he focus on the pendulum raised to 90 degrees: "..pivot point O feels no force in position 1 or position 5. For it, it is the same as if pendulum lost its mass m or gravity acceleration g became zero". We can try it, this is easily verifiable. The result is that if we have a "g=0" effect, the other bob of the oscillator should fall to the ground. This is also easily verifiable. Have you seen this part of the paper? So, what does it means?

Thank you for your interest, Andrea.
When the pendulum is around the lowest position, the height of the pivot point is lower due to the lever movement. This means that the pendulum is lower than its normal position when the pivot point is steady. It has lost potential energy that can be used totally or partially on the other side of the lever.
Then the kinetic energy transforms into potential energy allowing the pendulum to go up again but relatively to the pivot point, which is lower. Thus the new highest position of the pendulum is lower than before. We can think that the pivot point can be freely rose again toward the first position because when the pendulum is at the highest position, it has no weight from the viewpoint of the pivot. This is true, "it is the same as if pendulum lost its mass m". But to rise the pivot point does not mean to rise the pendulum by same height! For example if the pendulum arm is horizontal at the highest position and you rise the pivot point, then the pendulum arm will have an angle. To change the height of the pivot point doesn't change the pendulum height (or very little). You lose a part of the mean height at each swing of the pendulum, depending on the part of its potential energy that you use on the other side of the lever, and consequently you have to regularly push the pendulum to maintain its swing.

About your statements on conservative fields, I don't have enough knowledge of electric field

Well, forget, I was thinking about magnetic field while writing "electric field", so my comparison was not very relevant. I will have to rewrite it.

I just want to remember you that this part of forum is thought for people that hope that the gravity could be used positively, in the future. And they hope this thing well knowing that no one until today has extract anything from the conservative field of gravity. Ok?

BTW, I also think that this forum is a place in which people speak of overunity and the way of reach it. This could be a bit crazy, and maybe could not guide to anything, this is obvious. But all this people is doing it freely and with expense of their money, and above all they do it with no offense for anyone. I don't know if Marjanovic read this forum, but he is also studying this machine without remuneration. So, we can refute his theory, but we can't denigrate him. I really don't understand the users that denigrate, like you do in your posts. What is the meaning of your behavior? Just rudeness, I fear.

The insight of ideas is not dependant on the intentions of the authors. "Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions".
The problem is neither to express fantastic ideas nor to build incredible machines. One day one of them will perhaps work. The problem is to claim that it works for sure without any serious measurements, without third party duplications, and to "explain" not observed facts or not proved facts according to specious theories that are obviously not consistant or containing severe math mistakes (if it is a good intention or a scam, the result is the same: unproductive).

Why are you saying this? You have admitted more than once that you are not quakified in these matters. What is this desire in people not versed in the matters at hand to express opinions? Maybe you somehow rise In your own eyes and feel important this way? I don't know, this has become an epidemic. The ease to type posts helps, I guess.

Since you asked,
I aspire to use my superficial but intuitive physics understanding to steer greater thinkers towards a shorter path to OU.
Once a working math or mechanical concept is found, I trust my ingenuity will step in to offer a design to take a significant step in optimizing efficiency. Simple, effective applications are my trade.

I have long given you the benefit of the doubt, being obviously several more levels educated than myself. Your deeply rooted unrefutable belief in fully proven OU after just a few calcs, put me off. It sets people on a longer path to actual OU.

I am myself wondering of the motives of the Milkovic and friends group. What are their intentions? Why come with such unfounded papers, and pendulums that merely focus peak load without OU?
Milkovic's science is like the emperor's new clothes. Only the really smart can understand it.

1.1x more output than input would be awesome already.