@ Neptune,
 I am making no apologies and don't intend to. I was talking about producing energy, putting people to work and making a profit. Gravity is a never ending force that is all around you and and it just seems to me that it's how you utilize it. Nothing different then combustion, wind , tide or solar. Good luck with your build Neptune. For everybody else, build it or stop blabbing. My hat is off to all the people that I see building things. You just don't know till you try it.

@Fishman . Yes , I suspected that size matters ! My current model will use a pendulum about half a meter long . I f I can prove OU  to myself , no matter how small , I shall be inspired to build the next one bigger .

Hi Guys . Making some progress on my test rig . I have a base board with 2 stanchions , and a see-saw lever mounted on an old bicycle hub . Built on a zero budget , it will win no prizes for woodwork , but it is functional which is what matters . !00% recycled materials .I have also cast some test weights from ready mixed concrete which I begged from a local building site .They should have set by boxing day .
       Whilst working on this , a theory keeps coming into my head . According to the mathematic analysis of the 2SO by Jovan Marjanovic , The overunity comes from centrifugal force . So it might be possible that we could harvest energy from centrifugal force without involving gravity . Imagine 2 bike chainwheels [front sprockets ] mounted on a beam .The beam is like a see saw mounted on its side with the axle vertical . The 2 wheels are mounted , one each end of the see saw , also on vertical axles . A chain links the 2 wheels so they turn together in the same direction .Each wheel has a heavy weight mounted on its rim . We will view the device from above . At the start the weight on the left wheel is at 12 oclock , and the weight on the right wheel is at 6 oclock . We now turn the wheels 90 degrees clockwise so on the left wheel the weight is at 3 oclock , and on the right wheel 9 oclock . The centrifugal forces on the 2 weights cancel each other at this point . After a further 90 degrees , the left weight is at 6 oclock and the right weight at12 oclock . The centrifugal force on both weights acts to turn the see saw anti clockwise . After a further 90 degrees the left weight is at 9 oclock and the right weight at3 oclock . The forces cancel . The final 90 degrees takes the left weight to12 oclock and the left weight to 6 0clock . the forces combine now to turn the seesaw clockwise . So as the wheels turn the seesaw oscillates back and forth . We need to limit its movement to a small arc . Two poblems arise . How do we drive the wheels as it oscillates , and is it OU ?.The oscillating see saw can be linked to a crankshaft , which is linked somehow to the rotating chain wheels to ensure synchronisation .A diagram will help you visualise it .

Hi guys . still working on the test rig . One thing I have learned is that with this device , the forces are much greater than you expect , so build a sturdy frame .I have devised a very simple way to measure the input . My idea is measure the effects during just one swing of the pendulum from left to right . The pendulum is released from the horizontal . we then need to measure how high it rises on the right side . As it rises , it hits a very light lever which is balanced like a see saw . The pivot of this lever is just tight enough so it stays where you put it . As the pendulum rises , it lifts one end of this light lever , which I made from Corex plastic , or you could use cardboard . As the pendulum swings back , I catch it . then I can manually return it to its exact highest point , and measure the hight of its centre of gravity .I can thus measure its loss of hight during its first swing . Multiplying this distance by the pendulum weight gives me the input energy . Much more to do , watch this space .
 ADDED LATER .Initial tests show underunity , but this was expected , as no attempt has yet been made to tune the device . I fitted a heavier pendulum , but the frame is not strong enough to take it . So the next thing is to refit the original pendulum , but with a bearing instead of a plain pivot rod .
     A thing that worries me is this .Initial experiments are being done with a beam having both sides of equal length .Both Milkovic and rhead100 use beams with a 3 to one ratio or thereabouts . I shall get to this in time , but why not use an equal beam with a counterweight 3 times as heavy? Opinions welcome . My aim at this stage is to show overunity . After that , I want to try a rotating off balance flywheel instead of a pendulum , because mathematics show a 66% gain over a pendulum , and also , driving it is easier .

@neptune,   Rheads latest TSO lever is said to have a 7:1 ratio. He said he will allow a 3/4" of vertical movement on the short side to get a 5.25"  vertical movement on the long side.
I think the lever ratio is more about what your going to do with the output, and weather you want a longer weaker stroke or a shorter stronger stroke.

The big question for me is, what is a good "allowed vertical movement"? and what is relationship of the allowed vertical movement and the lenght of the swingarm?
I do think there must be a point of deminishing return on the allowed vertical movement. I no if i allow the lever to move too much, the performance decreases. If it is allowed to move too little, the performance decreases. 
While i have confirmed (to my satisfaction) the OU capability's of this device, i am still unclear that part.

@Replaced
Here are a couple of threads that might help you understand your questions.http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10172-why-perpetual-motion-machines-do-not-exist.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10197-gravity-not-force.html#post173498

If you seek the truth, you might find those helpful. But if you already no all the answers...

Those threads were constructive for the most part. Your comments here, not so much.

Just a brief update . Today I spent the time I had available altering the lever . I now have a 3.5 to 1 ratio . I have also reinforced the main frame in a few places . I can do no more until the wood glue dries . If I am able to replicate the OU shown by rhead100 , I have some original ideas to tryto close the loop .Of course rhead might beat me to it , in which case I will be the first to congratulate [and copy] him .

This seems to be my own private thread at the moment! No workshop time today . However I have been doing some serious thinking about the 2SO . I am a bit disappointed that I have been unable to prove OU  up to now .There can only be two possible reasons for this . Either no one has built an OU 2SO , or my particular 2SO is not OU. Looking again at the work and videos of Raymond Head [rhead100 ] his demonstrations seem to show OU . However he , like Milkovic has no perfect way to measure input . The Milkovic fish scale method is inacurate , and his demo with the lever operated torch [hand lamp] is to me open to deception because one can continue to push the pendulum with the torch after its lever has completed its travel .
     To measure the input continuously when the pendulum is pushed by hand every cycle . I suggest two methods .
1 . Tape a load cell to the palm of your hand , and monitor its output on
 a computer.By logging pressure and duration we can compute input energy for each stroke .
2 . Instead of pushing it with the hand , push it with a lever . The lever is operated by a falling weight , and is reset by hand after each stroke . The distance the weight can fall is adjusted so it just maintains the pendulum amplitude . With this low tech method we know the exact input at each stroke .
          For a mechanical device to be looped , it needs to be at least 2 times OU to compensate for losses .If it is only , say one and a half times , it could still have its uses , in muscle powered  devices .
  Accurate measurement is the key , gut feelings are unreliable . we can fall into what I call the bicycle syndrome . It is a proven fact , that if you walk a mile , you can cycle 3 miles for the same amount of energy . This does not mean the a bike is 3 times OU , it just means that walking is a relatively inefficient way to travel .
         There is always the possibility that my method of measuring the input energy for just one swing of the pendulum is in some way flawed , but at this stage , I can not see how . I would appreciate opinions from everyone .