Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !  (Read 1793099 times)

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2880 on: March 12, 2015, 04:05:21 AM »
No external work is performed by the apparatus in your diagrams.

#### Pirate88179

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 8366
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2881 on: March 12, 2015, 04:13:28 AM »
No external work is performed by the apparatus in your diagrams.

You have to factor in the Lead Out factor.  You add 50% to the mass of M1 and then, as you can see, the mass of M1 has increased by 50%.

Bill

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3534
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2882 on: March 12, 2015, 04:33:33 AM »
For those who cannot follow Physics Discussions, I have broken down the physics into baby steps.

Lawrence

Thank you, now,. Let's take a look at steps 5, 6, and 7: that's where you completely fall apart.

Exactly how much is " the video shows hardly decreases", and how does that decrease correspond to the energy placed into the swinging mass to begin with? It is very simple, as we discussed in the first 10,000 posts of this thread but you weren't paying attention then either....

The answer to your problem is  momentum= m * v, assuming the mass was initially at rest, is also the same energy imparted into the ball to get it swinging thus at said velocity, resulting in said swing-height, at corresponding frequency, to exert said perpendicular force that lifts the other end of the lever.
Now, go back through the equation and ......
account for this in the proper manner.

No energy led in or out, except through tangential-force, thus converted into momentum - which is conserved through the swing, except when its path of travel is altered as it approaches bottom dead center, and back again as it receeds
resulting in a lower height of the next consecutive swing, a change in frequency, and loss of momentum, as the Input energy is consumed and the velocity of the swinging mass decreases.

Take a grandfather clock, and with simple conversion you can demonstrate the precise experiment, with both height and associated weights clearly available to you and various mechanism to transfer force to whichever plane of direction you wish, and the keeper mechanism to ensure that the lifted weight sustains the pendulum motion.

We have been using clockworks and weights to keep a pendulum moving for hundreds of years. Do this, and you can easily test how much "lead-out" energy you need to put into the pendulum to keep it moving.

#### ltseung888

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4363
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2883 on: March 12, 2015, 05:09:23 AM »

Thank you, now,. Let's take a look at steps 5, 6, and 7: that's where you completely fall apart.

Exactly how much is " the video shows hardly decreases", and how does that decrease correspond to the energy placed into the swinging mass to begin with? It is very simple, as we discussed in the first 10,000 posts of this thread but you weren't paying attention then either....

The answer to your problem is  momentum= m * v, assuming the mass was initially at rest, is also the same energy imparted into the ball to get it swinging thus at said velocity, resulting in said swing-height, at corresponding frequency, to exert said perpendicular force that lifts the other end of the lever.
Now, go back through the equation and ......
account for this in the proper manner.

No energy led in or out, except through tangential-force, thus converted into momentum - which is conserved through the swing, except when its path of travel is altered as it approaches bottom dead center, and back again as it receeds
resulting in a lower height of the next consecutive swing, a change in frequency, and loss of momentum, as the Input energy is consumed and the velocity of the swinging mass decreases.

*** change in frequency???  Check the Physics...

Take a grandfather clock, and with simple conversion you can demonstrate the precise experiment, with both height and associated weights clearly available to you and various mechanism to transfer force to whichever plane of direction you wish, and the keeper mechanism to ensure that the lifted weight sustains the pendulum motion.

We have been using clockworks and weights to keep a pendulum moving for hundreds of years. Do this, and you can easily test how much "lead-out" energy you need to put into the pendulum to keep it moving.

Good.

Keep the scientific discussions going.  Knowledge is gained via discussions and experiments.  The discussions can come first.  Experiments will follow later.

Eight years ago, I made the mistake of doing experiments first - doing the Tong Wheel without adequate theoretical understanding.

Now, with 50 or more QMOGENs and more coming, I shall let others shine.

There is no need to get agreement now.  That is the nature of new scientific discoveries or inventions...  It is not majority wins. It is the scientific facts and evidence later.

Lawrence

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2884 on: March 12, 2015, 06:24:30 AM »
You have to factor in the Lead Out factor.  You add 50% to the mass of M1 and then, as you can see, the mass of M1 has increased by 50%.

Bill
Yes, it is very simple.  As long as we don't count what we put in:  We can have fantastic gains in what we get out versus what we choose to count.

#### ltseung888

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4363
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2885 on: March 12, 2015, 08:00:09 AM »
Actually, I was somewhat surprised that the first 10,000 posts did not raise the replacing of the pendulum with an Unbalanced Wheel.  The many implementations or replications of the Milkovic 2SO focused on large mass and large size.

The most important factor in Centrifugal Force is the angular velocity or rotational speed.

Many QMOGENs got it right.  Use motor to increase the rotational speed.

The best is still the Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier - motor to drive Unbalanced Cylinders...

Lawrence

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2886 on: March 12, 2015, 08:59:49 AM »
That still produce no external work, thus doing nothing for the input energy, thus being underunity.

#### ltseung888

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4363
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2887 on: March 12, 2015, 12:32:21 PM »
Received email from Taiwan Edison to see if I want to be a distributor of Maglev.

Looks like the Maglev is real.  The first thing to do is to check it out.  It may be time to get the young and capable involved.

At least one QMOGEN is available for investigation.

#### Void

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2446
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2888 on: March 12, 2015, 02:41:36 PM »
Many QMOGENs explicitly use Flywheels.  For the garage inventors, the chance of producing a slightly Unbalanced Flywheel is very high.  Dr. Raymond Ting replaced his flywheel with an explicit unbalanced flywheel.  (Bolting a hammer to a flywheel).  The resulting torque twisted the shaft.  The device shook so much that he had to stop the experiment.

Hi Lawrence. The large flywheel in the video may well be from a commercial source such as a flywheel designed
for some industrial machinery. Also, it seems highly doubtful to me that a small imbalance in a flywheel
would cause the device to be over unity. If there was any significant imbalance in the flywheel then the
flywheel would likely cause very noticeable shaking in the frame. Sorry, but you appear to be really reaching to try to
justify your ideas, but the fact is if at least some 'QMogens' which do not use any unbalanced wheels or unbalanced
cylinders really do work as claimed, then it is simply not known (at least publicly) what is causing them to work.
All the best...

« Last Edit: March 12, 2015, 08:46:21 PM by Void »

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2889 on: March 12, 2015, 08:23:22 PM »
Received email from Taiwan Edison to see if I want to be a distributor of Maglev.

Looks like the Maglev is real.  The first thing to do is to check it out.  It may be time to get the young and capable involved.

At least one QMOGEN is available for investigation.
Why don't you publish that letter after blacking out any personal details about yourself?

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2890 on: March 12, 2015, 08:26:44 PM »
No sir Agent Smith, I am completely unaware of Mr. Jonson's Involvement, nor why the United States would emplore an out of work salesman with a spinning coffee-table, to build advance jet engines, no sir.

I have know knowledge his teachings, the technology or the potential uses, thereof........

It's really a shame that the rolling axle never makes it back around to the gate input.  Why do you think that is?  Do you think that it is because the axle ending position as shown is at a lower energy potential than at the start?  Well, Mr. Anderson?

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3534
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2891 on: March 12, 2015, 08:44:02 PM »
It's really a shame that the rolling axle never makes it back around to the gate input.  Why do you think that is?  Do you think that it is because the axle ending position as shown is at a lower energy potential than at the start?  Well, Mr. Anderson?

Theres a few H J threads for that, its a little off topic. It can be made to enter into another gate, or loop back unto itself.
That video demonstrates the driving principal in its most basic form. The entrance of the field is modified to reduce repulsion at the front of the gate. "PE" with respect to the magnetic field only defines a point to point relationship within that field, not necessarily the kinetic energy of the path it took to get to that point. In an asymmetrical field these can be two greatly different values.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2892 on: March 12, 2015, 09:07:52 PM »
Theres a few H J threads for that, its a little off topic. It can be made to enter into another gate, or loop back unto itself.
AFAIK  HJ was never able to get his devices to complete a loop.  If he had succeeded then OU would be here.
Quote

That video demonstrates the driving principal in its most basic form. The entrance of the field is modified to reduce repulsion at the front of the gate. "PE" with respect to the magnetic field only defines a point to point relationship within that field,
Yes, that's what a gradient does.
Quote
not necessarily the kinetic energy of the path it took to get to that point.
Paths have nergy potentials.  Kinetic energy is energy of motion.  The term has no meaning in the sense of potential energies in a field.
Quote
In an asymmetrical field these can be two greatly different values.
If by asymmetrical field you mean a non-conservative field:  IE a field where the path taken from a starting point back to that same point can result in energy gain or loss, then the problem you have is establishing a static magnetic field that is non-conservative.  That is what Steorn claimed to do and completely failed to demonstrate.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13968
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2893 on: March 12, 2015, 09:08:37 PM »
Theres a few H J threads for that, its a little off topic. It can be made to enter into another gate, or loop back unto itself.
(snip)

Go ahead then, show it made to "loop back unto itself" and continue to operate on its own.

It's simple enough, isn't it? Then why don't you do it?

I know why, and so do you. No arrangement of permanent magnet "gates" adds any energy. Go ahead, prove me wrong! You cannot.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3534
##### Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #2894 on: March 12, 2015, 10:10:07 PM »

i don't want to flood this thread with arguments about a completely different device,
we can go to the H J threads and talk pages about it, but this one is for double pendulum. ^^