Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2223602 times)

bradpitt · « **Reply #750 on:** June 28, 2008, 04:51:04 AM »

Guess what I am finding ...the wheel has to be just below where the center of the pendulum weight it

Hans,
if you have a computer SIM then I recommend running it and I think you will be surprised what you will find??? I can not paste anything here from the computer sim

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #751 on:** June 28, 2008, 04:55:11 AM »

I have WM2D my e-mail is hans@keelytech.com

Hans

fletcher · « **Reply #752 on:** June 28, 2008, 04:57:46 AM »

Jeff .. I suggest you attach some sort of flywheel to your crank axle e.g. a cast iron or steel pulley wheel or a large castor wheel etc - this will store some of the rotational kinetic energy & give it back again in the direction of rotation - if the pendulum action is erratic or irregular then a flywheel is IMO the best way to smooth out energy demands.

As you have it, frictional losses will slow things down & reduce the average amplitude of the pendulum making it harder & harder to get it over 12 o'cl, IMO.

neptune · « **Reply #753 on:** June 29, 2008, 05:53:08 PM »

The Milkovich device has been around for years, and yet no one has proved if it is overunity or not. Presure of work means I have no time to experiment. I have thought of a simple experiment , which will take little time, which will prove one way or the other if it is overunity. First imagine a typical set-up. Horizontal beam pivoted near the centre, with pendulum at th right. on the left, the beam is used to lift a known weight at each stroke. Now imagine a piece of sting. Yhis is fixed to the pendulum at a point about midway between the pendulums weight and its bearing. This string now runs through a pulley or guide placed as near the beam pivot as pssible under the beam. From here, the string hangs vertically, and on its end is a known weight. Midway between this wight and the beam pivot is another guide consisting of a flat plate with a hole in it mounted on a bracket. We will call this guide 2. Finally we attach a second string to the weight and run it through guide 2.
If we now pull on this second string, we raise the weight up to the underside of guide 2. Keer it hel there, and set the pendulum swinging. When the pendulum is at its right hand end of the swing, release the weight and allow it to fall, thus pulling on thependulum and giving it an input of energy. As soon as the weight hits the floor, pullit back up, and hold it untill the pendulum again reaches the right hand end of its swing, and release it. Carefully synchronise your pulling with the swinging of the pendulum.
By measuring the weight, and the distance it falls, we can express the input energy to the pendulum per cycle in gram-centimetres or inch ounces. If the left side of the beam is used to lift a heavier weight, we can measure the out put pr cycle in the same units. This is proof beyond doubt.
before doing the test ensure the device is tuned for max performance. Please post your results wether pos or neg. Note that this tesr would be easier on a large model with a slow pendulum

bradpitt · « **Reply #754 on:** July 01, 2008, 04:36:47 AM »

Here is my new video...because what I realized is that I was just making a bigger over balanced wheel....so I went smaller (easy to work on)
Still not working
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zpl2u-buSw

edelind · « **Reply #755 on:** July 01, 2008, 09:24:30 AM »

Quote from: hansvonlieven on June 26, 2008, 11:44:13 PM

G'day Broli and all,

This has been done many times. Brian Berrett and Ron Pugh have used similar arrangements. This is all documented. All have walked away from it since there is NO energy gain in the device!

Hans von Lieven

Thank you for the links. They are very instructive. Anyway, I don't see anywhere where it's said that there is no energy gain. In fact everywhere is noticed more energy at output than at input. Brian Berret looks like he abandoned this design not because of the efficiency, but because of the extremely difficult tuning that is required (he also has a video where he shows the random move of the lever with no weight). At the time of making his project open source he only was able to run the device for 15 seconds.

edelind · « **Reply #756 on:** July 01, 2008, 09:43:59 AM »

Regarding the complexity of oscillations, I think a pendulum with a lever is somehow similar with a double pendulum, at least as complexity.

Watch a demonstration here (who dares to tune that?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whvl6CikDxA

And a simulation here:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/doublependulum.html

In fact, with the attached spring, the complexity becomes even wilder, maybe similar with this:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/springpendulum.html

stevensuf · « **Reply #757 on:** July 06, 2008, 06:55:25 AM »

I wonder why some people find this example so difficult to get into their heads.

Imagine a see saw saw one side was 10m and the other 2m, one side had 10kg on it then other 2kg,
(ie the 2m end has 10kg and the 10m end 2 kg)
it would sit in balance, say i added 1kg to either side it would fall and the other rise , if i removed the
kilo it would eventually return to balance.

OK so say on the side with 2m i put a 1 kg weight and a 9kilo pendulum.
With no motion it is all balanced, so say i raise the pendulum by 90 degrees the system is no unblanaced
and will fall towards the 10m end.

Once the pendulum is released it simply falls, the lever will begin to raise, when the pendulum reaches mid
point ie vertical it will have an effective force akin to its original weight, ie say 9kg x 10ms for gravity say 90n (rounding
i do know g=9.81 n) which would make the system balanced again, but you also have the force of its velocity at this
point acting directly downwards, now say it was moving at 2 m/s it now has a force of 118n ie effectively making it act
like a weight which is 20% heavier upsetting the balance and raising the beam higher than it would if it were stationary.
the pendulum then reaches the other 90 degree apex repeating the effective weightless ie no force acting on the lever
part of the cycle and it falls again.

It is extremely simple, the reason for the long beam is so as not to upset the pendulum cycle by its motion, the only
extra energy put in to maintaining the pendulum is to overcome natural forces - wind , frictions etc

No energy is lost in the pendulum swing ie put into the lever, the lever simply moves due to decreases/increases of force
on the lever by the pendulum changing position. ie the effective weight on the pendulum side changes during its swing.

Ie at 90 degrees we have an effective weight reduction of -9kg at vertical bottom and increase of +2kg

remember people weight is an illusion there is only mass and the force acting on it that give us this number! 10kg on earth weighs 6kg on mars or 3kg on the moon!

A simple test ie swing the pendulum with the lever locked time how long it takes to stop, unlock the lever change the pendulum length to adjust to the lever motion , swing it again and time how long it takes to stop, if no difference (others have reported this) then certainly nothing goes from the pendulum to the lever.

If only people would question the nonsense taught at school, if you ignore the teaching that says you cant get work out of gravity and look at it logically and reasonably then it is all extremely simple.

i_ron · « **Reply #758 on:** July 07, 2008, 01:02:35 AM »

Quote from: stevensuf on July 06, 2008, 06:55:25 AM

snip
Once the pendulum is released it simply falls, the lever will begin to raise, when the pendulum reaches mid point ie vertical it will have an effective force akin to its original weight, the only
extra energy put in to maintaining the pendulum is to overcome natural forces - wind , frictions etc

No energy is lost in the pendulum swing ie put into the lever, the lever simply moves due to decreases/increases of force on the lever by the pendulum changing position. ie the effective weight on the pendulum side changes during its swing.
snip
Ie at 90 degrees we have an effective weight reduction of -9kg at vertical bottom and increase of +2kg

snip

A simple test ie swing the pendulum with the lever locked time how long it takes to stop, unlock the lever change the pendulum length to adjust to the lever motion , swing it again and time how long it takes to stop, if no difference (others have reported this) then certainly nothing goes from the pendulum to the lever.

snip

True up to a certain point but several ambiguities have crept in.

"the lever will begin to raise" (sic) Which side of the lever? You mean the lever on the opposite
side to the pendulum will rise, I assume.

"no energy is lost..." is simply not true. The rise and fall of the pendulum pivot point, at the end of
the lever, directly disturbs the swing of the pendulum. You are in effect dropping the pendulum as
it approaches the bottom of it's swing. This is an energy loss. A further loss occurs as the pendulum
swings up to it's apogee, there the pivot point rises as the weight lessens.This perturbation of the
pendulum is exactly opposite to the natural motion needed to maintain the swing, as shown in the
Botafumeiro scene, where the monks pull down on the rope... raising the incense burner, at the
bottom of it's swing.I am not advocating this labor intensive approach... just using it as an example.
Try it and you will see.

Ron

greendoor · « **Reply #759 on:** July 07, 2008, 12:11:53 PM »

A simple way of looking at where the energy goes is this:

If your Milkovic beam is stalled - the pendulum just oscillates like an ordinary pendulum. This proves nothing.

If the beam moves - doing work - then consider the degrees of angular momentum that are "lost" - they are the exact same number of degrees that the beam moves. The energy that keeps a pendulum going is the pull of gravity on the fall down. As the beam moves X number of degrees down, the pendulum is robbed of exactly X number of degrees of gravity assist.

The reason we are fooled by Milkovic is because a Lever is a cool torque amplifier - at the expense of distance. And a pendulum is a cool energy storage device. Coupled together - we can fool ourselves by putting in a small force - applied over a greater distance, and over a greater period of time - to achieve a great thumping impulse for a very short period of time, over a very short distance ...

i_ron · « **Reply #760 on:** July 11, 2008, 12:27:30 AM »

Quote from: greendoor on July 07, 2008, 12:11:53 PM

A simple way of looking at where the energy goes is this:

If your Milkovic beam is stalled - the pendulum just oscillates like an ordinary pendulum. This proves nothing.

If the beam moves - doing work - then consider the degrees of angular momentum that are "lost" - they are the exact same number of degrees that the beam moves. The energy that keeps a pendulum going is the pull of gravity on the fall down. As the beam moves X number of degrees down, the pendulum is robbed of exactly X number of degrees of gravity assist.

The reason we are fooled by Milkovic is because a Lever is a cool torque amplifier - at the expense of distance. And a pendulum is a cool energy storage device. Coupled together - we can fool ourselves by putting in a small force - applied over a greater distance, and over a greater period of time - to achieve a great thumping impulse for a very short period of time, over a very short distance ...

Unfortunately, you offer this as an opinion only.
Where is the experiment and the numbers to back up your pronouncements?

Ron

Talmin · « **Reply #761 on:** July 16, 2008, 03:43:41 AM »

Latest news from www.veljkomilkovic.com

Dear friends,

recently Mr. Bojan Petkovic completed the draft version of his mathematical model and analysis of the two-stage mechanical oscillator and now he wishes to share it with the scientific community for public discussion and peer review.

Modeling and simulation of a double pendulum with pad by Bojan Petkovic, engineer:
An independent mathematical analysis by Bojan Petkovic considers the Veljko Milkovic's two-stage mechanical oscillator in a form of double pendulum with a pad that presents a mechanical system which is not analyzed in the literature:
"In this paper, results of the simulation of a double pendulum with a horizontal pad are presented. Pendulums are arranged in such a way that in the static equilibrium, small pendulum takes the vertical position, while the big pendulum is in a horizontal position and rests on the pad. Motion during one half oscillation is investigated. Impact of the big pendulum on the pad is considered to be ideally inelastic. Characteristic positions and angular velocities of both pendulums, as well as their energies at each instant of time are presented. Obtained results proved to be in accordance with the motion of the real physical system. Double pendulum with pad refers to the two-stage mechanical oscillator that is invented, patented and constructed by Serbian inventor Veljko MilkoviÄ‡..."

You can read and download the paper on the next link (213 KB - PDF):
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Bojan_Petkovic-Modeling_and_Simulation_of_a_Double_Pendulum_With_Pad.pdf

cleanfuture · « **Reply #762 on:** July 16, 2008, 05:30:55 AM »

I have built and tested a replica of the Milcovitc design myself. It is about 1m tall and is entirely made from a K-Nex construction kit. The model incorporates a .8m diameter wheel that is driven by a geared up ratchet mechanism attached to the pivot shaft of the main cross beam. The idea was to convert the oscillation into a rotation of a flywheel. Mechanically, It was actually not all that hard to do. That is why I can't work out that Milcovitc has not build a model like that himself yet. He has registered a patent on a design like this but has, to the best of my knowledge, not built one like that. If you want to prove if you can make self sustainable power, a rotational output is ideal because it interfaces with of the shelf electric generator/alternators. Milcovitc does not seem to be very professional. When I saw his video where he is proposing that the pendulum pump could alleviate unemployment in the country by employing people to hand operate pendulum pumps allover the place, I knew he was a propeller-head. Anyway, my tests showed clearly that the load from the wheel does indeed reflect back on the movement of the pendulum. With the main beam locked rigid, the pendulum will swing considerably longer than if the beam is allowed to oscillate and create power through the wheel. The rate of damping on the pendulum is proportional to the rate of amplitude of the beam. If you gays are interested, I will post a picture of the thing.
Uli

neptune · « **Reply #763 on:** July 16, 2008, 05:38:47 PM »

@Cleanfurure. I still believe this device may be overunity. If you study the work of RHEAD100 on Youtube, his maths seems to suggest that max efficiency is achieved at small movements of the beam. Out put must be extracted from both the up and down movements of the beam. Tuning would seem to be the whole key. I am slowly collecting parts for a new model. Final proof of overunity in my opinion can accurately be measured by rising/falling weights, see my last post.
In my opinion the mathematical analysis by Bojan Petkovic is a waste of time, because having waded through his pages of B/S we are still left wondering is he saying it is overunity or not?

?
@Cleanfuture, please read my last post. This idea, after tuning will tell you the truth.

cleanfuture · « **Reply #764 on:** July 17, 2008, 07:55:28 AM »

Quote from: neptune on July 16, 2008, 05:38:47 PM

@Cleanfurure. I still believe this device may be overunity. If you study the work of RHEAD100 on Youtube, his maths seems to suggest that max efficiency is achieved at small movements of the beam. Out put must be extracted from both the up and down movements of the beam. Tuning would seem to be the whole key. I am slowly collecting parts for a new model. Final proof of overunity in my opinion can accurately be measured by rising/falling weights, see my last post.
In my opinion the mathematical analysis by Bojan Petkovic is a waste of time, because having waded through his pages of B/S we are still left wondering is he saying it is overunity or not??
@Cleanfuture, please read my last post. This idea, after tuning will tell you the truth.

I appreciate your comment. I did try to keep the stroke as short as possible though. The output from the beam axle is geared up 12 to 1 to get appreciable angular movement on the drive gear to the flywheel. This shows, since power is force over distance, as soon as the power output is increased, the pendulum is dampened. What you are saying is that there is some kind of non linear harmonic relationship going between the pendulum period and the beam movement. I think the way you are proposing to prove this will work. I just cannot understand that Milcovitc has not been able to build a device himself that provides irrefutable prove of overunity.
Uli

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2223602 times)

bradpitt

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

hansvonlieven

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

fletcher

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

neptune

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

bradpitt

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

edelind

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

edelind

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

stevensuf

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

i_ron

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

greendoor

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

i_ron

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

Talmin

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

cleanfuture

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

neptune

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

cleanfuture

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