I am a seeker of truth . Sometimes when we seek the truth , the truth turns out  to be not what we had hoped for .I spent an hour in the workshop today , and repeated my experiments , taking very careful measurements . The best results I could obtain with this model are 60% efficiency . Although this model is crude , it has good bearings at both pivots . Note that I have not proved the 2SO is not overunity , just this particular one .This is a shame in that if I had found an efficiency of , say 95% , I would have felt more inspired to invest my very scarce resources in building a bigger , better model .
       That is why I am asking for help from anyone who has already built a bigger model . A few minutes of your time would enable you to use my method to test the efficiency . To simplify testing I am making an assumption . I am assuming that if the output arm raises a weight , even if the weight is then allowed to fall , work has been done . Someone [was it perhaps Cloxxi ?] suggested that this is not work , just an oscillation . However is this not what people do at the gym , and it makes them sweat , so they feel they are doing work . I am also making the assumption that if we limit the amount that the weight rises by a physical stop , we control the amount of work done [ we definitely thus limit the damping effect on the pendulum .] So on my model , I conclude that whatever work done at the output is definitely extracted from the pendulum with a best efficiency of 60% . Can anyone show a higher efficiency using the same methods please ?

I once opened a paper the group published, and even with my highschool psysics I could tell within seconds they were making up incorrect formulae with incorrect units of measurement as outcome. A waste of time. It's not up to us to school them, they are to school us.
 
If they know it so well, they'd build it. They sure have the building skills.
Making wild claims, and letting the world figure out a way to make it work, after which they can claim invention.
 
If they could point out the underlying math without (intentional or unintensional) errors, this forum would build a working device, 2SO or otherwise, instantly.
Present me a precise pendulum path and the amount of energy to be extracted from CF, and I'll tell you how to build the device to do so.
Same for the second stage (weren't we suppose to extract all those buckets of FE there?). Tell us how much to extract, and we will. Don't blame us when the result is a stalled 2SO.
This is no hint of FE, not even anomalous behavior that I'm aware of.

  Hi Cloxxki,
 Building is not always easy. Myself, I may need to move to a place where I will have room for equipment. Still, I have worked to learn what it will take to build what I believe has already been accomplished.
 With 2 pendulums, I don't think they claimed OU but as you mentioned would probably claim it as their invention and wrongly so. There might be a way for one pendulum to power another for an OU device. This is one reason why I like Tom's idea that was originally posted in the thread "Was Bessler for Real ?" as he wonders if it would lead to a working Bessler wheel.
 It seems credit is what some want while others are willing to help. That has always been one of the difficulties with what is supposedly at stake with such an invention. But I did post one aspect of a pendulum's behavior that everyone seems to have ignored. Actually 2 of them and both important in pursuing OU in my opinion..
 Myself, not sure when I can build again. For me, it is frustrating as I am tired of going over the math and concepts ad nauseum and would like to see what happens when rubber meets pavement.
 
                                                                                                                                Jim

@ norman,
  I suggest you Check out the escapements wiki also, i think that you'll see that we have already been using gravity, force, work, distance, etc for quite some time, as in several thousand years. Our ancestors built amazing works through knowledge of simple mathmatics and I am sure that we can do better. One observation that I feel is important with the tsmo is  the "moment of weightlessness". That is where I feel the tsmo gains it's power. I think that the argument about initial input put into the process are not important. It is no different then a gunshot. For a gun shot, think of the energy put in by accumulating the materials, mixing them, packaging them and then finally firing them. Same for oil and gas. I wish I would have done some better more reliable results with some of my earlier experiments, but I didn't. Some models work better off balance, some models seem to work better balanced. Some of my best models work off of "imbalance". Imbalance seems to be what all the bessler wheel fans seem to be aiming for, but most bessler wheels seem to aiming for just getting the wheel going around. Because of that, I have no interest in Bessler wheel stuff. From my research, a Bessler wheel just won't work. Even if it did, so what. I just don't see what use it would be to keep a wheel going around with no output. I have my own ideas, and I am willing to try to expain them to everybody, but I don't feel like getting bashed by evrybody about them. Milkovics ideas are sound to me, but the eccentric flywheel is where the power seems to be. In my trade ( industrial power and hvac),imbalance is the worst thing you can imagine. At high rpms, it can be very destructive. we strive to avoid that. Resonance? In a tall building, we spend many dollars and manhours to prevent "resonance" because the simple notion of an "unbalanced pump" can actaullly vibrate a building to death( much like tesla's supposed earth quake device). Lot's of questions, but the only way they are answered is by trying your ideas. Maybe imbalance is what we are looking for. Or a way to exploit it. Anyway @neptune, I am not trying to discourage you at all, I would like to show you some of my simulations and see what you think. Talk soon,Greg 

Neptune,
 
Thank you for your neutral response. I am aware I am depressing some really bright folks here. I am a truth seeker too though, and false hopes need to be crushed asap for enlightenment to have any chance.
 
Indeed, gymwork is hard, even if the weight seems to only oscillate.
HOWEVER.
When I'm bench pressing, I am not done when I've extended my elbows. I still have to do braking work on the way down, or the barbell will decapitate me. I don't NEED the weight to press down on my body as strongly, but I'm holding it, and can't deal with the impact upon muscle-less reset.
I am doing more work with doing 10 reps, than 10x the height of the ligt times the weight (and that of my arms' COM).
Up to 2x as much work, when the bar doesn't reach my chest.
 
The weight at the second stage is lifted, OK. This is work, for that moment. But the cycle is not over.
The weight is reset, coming down.
What is less obvious, is the work the weight coming down is performing.
It's in its turn resetting the pendulum.
Why? The pendulum delivered the work to raise the weight. Now the weight need to swing the pendulum back up.
If you measure well, you'll note that the weight on the way down is NOT in freefall.
 
If you were to unhook the weight at the top of it's oscillation, and at the same limit the vertical movement of the crossbar with a simple stop...
You could in 2SO theory le the weight do work for an external gravity extraction device. Place the weight where the 2SO is expecting it fo a lift, and let the cycle repeat.
This doesn't work, because the weight coming down is an (inefficient) way to give the pendulum back the energy it donated.

It all happens in a blink of the eye, impossible to see how the KE flows through the system, however simple it is in design.
 
Well, the claim was not infinite overunity, just 12x.
that would mean, in my above story, that only 1/12 of the weight were to be needed to keep the cycle going.
With a giant 2SO, 12 Gouda cheeses would be on the second stage. 11 taken off at top, and 11 new ones added at the bottom.
Or, you'd raise 12 cheeses, one would roll over the the pendulum side, and crash full-on against it. The other 11 cheeses were taken off the elevator at the top.
 
Your 60% measurement might well be, because the pendulum is more efficient in pulling on it's rod, lifting the second stage, than the second stage is efficient in accelerating a pendulum, connected via crossbar, back up to speed.
The pendulum pull straight in the direction of its CF, which is at close to 90º with the see-saw crossbar.
The second stage is also nicely vertical with a level crossbar, however the pendulum is not staying put.
 
I could see 10% of losses at the input side, and 30% on the feedback, to come to your 60%. (I know that's fuzzy math, but you get my drift.)
 
I admire the work done on escapements, especially by RHEAD. And I have little doubt that 95% efficiency will at one point be attained. That would be quite an engineering accomplishment. Perhaps it could be applied to engine systems, those are suffering from similar efficiency issues in mechanical force transfer.

Hi Cloxxki .Many thanks for your lengthy reply . It is true what you say about false hopes needing to be crushed . Your reply has important implications that will take me a while to fully understand , but I will reply when I have thought about it . I am 66 years old , and as you may have guessed I do not do a lot of bench pressing these days , although I still bike at least 10 miles every day . Later , Ken .

Funny, I know a Ken (R) of similar age in the US who works our quite a bit.
 
I am just 35. Too young to be wise, but hopefully young enough (and not bothered by any relevant education) to see through mental boobytraps.
 
Please don't regard me as a wise man in this subject, I just kick people's legs and see what they have to kick back with. Hoping to learn.
Do please ask me about any fuzzyness in my comments. My own insights are on a steep incline right now, hopefully uphill. A picture is forming. About time, considering how long its been hurting my brain.
 
I sure wish I'd be preaching why it DOES work. When I really get behind an idea (bugging the whole world about it), it usually becomes mainstream in 5-10 years time.
When I find (via forums such as these) someone's open source FE, I'm going to promote the heck out of it, and help develop it. Same with the 2SO, it someone can convince me of any level of OU (the hard part being done), I will design the escapement for it, and even donate whatever cash I have for a replicator to make it happen.

LATEST NEWS. Just spent an interesting 10 minutes in the workshop . 10 was long enough because its cold in there .In rough tests , I found that by decreasing the load weight , efficiency went up to 80 to 90 % .My initial idea was to use the heaviest weight it would lift , so as to delay weight lift until just before bottom dead centre .In practice , it looks like this is not the best idea , and extensive further tests are warranted with the current test rig . I plan to do loads of tests with different weights and lift distances , possibly plotting the results on a graph .
        I discovered something else . With practice , I CAN increase the pendulum amplitude by moving the pivot up and down by hand . With a short pendulum [1/2 metre ] things happen fast , and it is not easy to see just what is happening . What I THINK is happening is that for this to gain amplitude, the pivot has to be LOW at the pendulums bottom dead centre , and high at the stroke ends . I this is true it is OPPOSITE to what Jovan Marjanovic predicts in his paper"Keys to understanding the Gravity machines of Veljko Milkovic " I will test this out tomorrow with a 2 metre pendulum , namely a weight on a string , as anyone can . One thing is clear . For the lever to feed energy into the pendulum ,there has to be an exact phase relationship between the two .The question is , which I am working towards answering , is does this phase   .  relationship exist in a working 2SO .I am fed up with typing the word "pendulum" . Can I have an extra key fitted to do it for me ?

I'm modeling things a little differently than Milkovic's typical bicycle setup.  Here a couple of videos by some one else to give you the idea.  It's funny he fails to mention Milkovic and any of his videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9RtZfsuXg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNtEtBXYn0Q

In the second on he has the masses set up to be a frictional resistance.  The more like what I'm doing.

At first I calculated the energy required to push a mass back and forth in freespace, and the result was quite high.  Then I realized that figure was the energy recirculating in the oscillator system, like the large amount of energy that recirculates in a tank circuit, rather than the output energy.

To get the output energy, a resistance of some sort must be used.  In my models I am using a linear damper instead of the friction mass in the mentioned videos, and then calculate the energy dissipated in the damper.

I had to use a rotating mass like in these videos because I'm having trouble figuring out how to add input energy to a pendulum in the simulation software.

I give some thought to what I can do about your questions.

Hi Guys . @ Fishman . I think your last post was mainly addressed to Cloxxki . I hope you dont mind if I add my comments .First the device ised by mountain climbers . I dont know what climbers call it , but an identical device is used on sailing ships . Sailors call it a JAM CLEAT .Whilst this would do the job , my choice would be a linear ratchet , as used on a car hand brake .Personally I agree with your 3 conditions , except I have reservations about number 2 . I respect and trust Raymond Head . However it is possible that he is misleading himself here .Measuring hand push is not easy . We have to measure both pressure , and duration .We could roughly measure pressure using a kitchen scales to push with , and fitting it with a sort of moving marker to show the maximum position of the pointer . That would at least show the max push . If we arranged for an electrical contact to close each time the kitchen scales touched the pendulum , we could operate a buzzer or lamp , and work out the duration by video analyisis.At this stage , I think the 2SO is OU , but only with a factor of 3 rather than twelve . What Raymond shows is enough to convince me  of this .As earlier stated , I suggest the following way to allow independent falling of the counterweight .Mount said weight on a light weight arm the arm runs above the output arm of the main seesaw , and has its own pivot mounted on the seesaw just above the main beam pivot .So it is like a horizontal pendulum laying on half the seesaw .When it rises , it catches on a ratchet which holds it at its highest point . OK , I am going to play with my 2SO . Regards ken .