Sorry Ron, I did not realise this is your report and your machine. Well built, I have no problems with this.

I do not agree with your method of measurement as you do not measure work performed but merely sinusoidal fluctuations in pressure between the lever arm and the couterweight.

If you were to mount two equal weights equidistant on a balance beam and mounted a load cell on either side in the same fashion it would take only a minute amount of energy to move the balance beam but you would get the same results.The sinusoidal characteristic shows the reversal of force direction only and adds up to zero in the end. There is no work performed.

I will draw the experiment for you if you wish.

Hans von Lieven

There is no energy gain in a guitar for instance. It is simply a focusing and re-directing of the energy that is there.

Examples are a megaphone (acoustic focusing) or a parabolic mirror (optic focusing) It merely bundles available vibrations and re-directs them. There is NO net gain!

Hans von Lieven

I'm sorry Hans but you are so wrong that you wouldn't believe it!
It is the common thought though that the amplification process in guitar cases and trumpets for example, or really at the core, the resonant chamber, is a process of focusing the sound in one direction.
However this is only the case of an parabolic antenna shape (or a hyperbolic shape) which will focus the sound at one specific point. I guess the only way you will learn this is by doing  a simple experiment as I did when I started to think about this stuff.

The shape of a trumpet does not only focus the small sound coming in, it does also amplify it many times and you can test this with a small headphone ( those you can place in the ear). By first listening to the volume without a trumpet and then place it at the opening of the trumpet, you WILL find that the volume its greatly increased (especially the lower frequencies, depending on the shape of course).

Now, if you are inside a room, point the trumpet in another direction and notice that the volume still remains high. This is not an results of focusing the sound in one direction, because in that case you would have far less volume than what you had even before you used the trumpet.

Also, just like a tuning fork on top of a soundbox magnifies its output many times, or as the strings on a acoustic guitar, the sound waves coming from the mouth will travel inside the resonant chamber of a trumpet and inside create standing waves. This waves will magnify the volume just like spinning a wheel will increase its rate of rotation. However, as opposite to the wheel, doing doing work on the air by transmitting that larger sound volume will not drain the oscillation down to a smaller level (as in the common LC tank for example).
This is again exactly how the Milkociv 2-stage oscillator works.

I'm looking forward to hear your report, and be prepared to be shocked 

If you read up on the classical experiment with the tuning forks in any good physics book you will find that I am correct.

Hans

According to their explanation of the phenomena, yes. But if you want to apply the conservation of energy theory to a simple tuning fork experiment, first with a sound box, then without one, you will at least have to change some numbers around to make the results sound more "compatible" with current theory.
Its never easy to go against the tide, whether it is the "scientific" establishment or if it is the current religious beliefs at the moment.
......
Hah, you're a Muslim and believe in falsehood, I'm a Christian and know you are wrong and will burn in hell!
......
Dogmas can be a pain in the ass.....

According to their explanation of the phenomena, yes. But if you want to apply the conservation of energy theory to a simple tuning fork experiment, first with a sound box, then without one, you will at least have to change some numbers around to make the results sound more "compatible" with current theory.
Its never easy to go against the tide, whether it is the "scientific" establishment or if it is the current religious beliefs at the moment.
......
Hah, you're a Muslim and believe in falsehood, I'm a Christian and know you are wrong and will burn in hell!
......
Dogmas can be a pain in the ass.....

I am talking about MEASUREMENTS, not beliefs!

Hans von Lieven

No, of course not. I have never seen a true square wave in nature, in fact I doubt it can be created. Abrupt reversal of flows in my view cannot exist.

But that is not the point, I simply maintain that any surplus energy that shows up is an error in measurement as far as this device is concerned.

But please don't let me discourage you, you are a good researcher and builder and I have always had a high opinion of your abilities ever since I saw the first mechanised pendulum of yours published on Milkovic's site.

Hans von Lieven

OK Ron,

Here is the suggested comparison test. The diagram is self explanatory. The small motor provides the oscillations. Since the system is in balance the input energy is very small. Compare that to the load cell measurements and you will see what I mean.

Prove me wrong, I hope you do. I am not averse to eating crow if it advances our understanding of science.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

If you do the math you will see the fallacy of your setup.

Ron

I am talking about MEASUREMENTS, not beliefs!

Hans von Lieven

Well you wont find one! Trying to prove conservation of energy wrong is already as controversial as it can get, no serious scientist with a love for his reputation would even consider doing such an experiment, even when it really is as simple as it can get. Yes you can find lots of setups and explanations of Helmholtz resonator in books, but they will only go into the technical stuff related to acoustical sound and reproduction, they will not begin to debate whether or not the large sound out is actually greater than what the driving sound was. If someone would ask them so, they would probably *ASSUME* that yes of course the energy is conserved , because modern science say that's how it is. How could they make an assessment when they aren't even qualified to make such an experiment?

Its time to face it, much of todays knowledge is split of into several medium and small fields which some random people specializes into, and then becomes an expert in. However that expert is still most often a novice in most other fields. This is a big error in todays way of searching for the real combined truth.

And a problem which actually proves that todays theories cannot really be true is that many of them simply aren't possible to combine. In the future, when we (man) finally make the grand unified theory which can combine all experienced phenomena into one logical theory, then we KNOW that we got it right.

But be me guess, try search through some books and the Internet to find the answer, do everything you can but maybe the simplest experiment:  See if sound actually can be amplified in resonant tubes and chambers, as which I claim is the case with most instruments today.
You got an electric guitar? Well slap the strings one time first. Then place then neck against something made out of wood, a door perhaps. Now slap the strings again. Can you hear the volume increase.
Would you care to explain it?  Or are you simply denying it?

Ron wrote;

t”All the energy thus generated stays in the system, there is no work being done”, another negative statement. I was wondering the differences between us and that is the most obvious, I can dream.

I am not an avid poster here, but every once in a while something catches my attention.

'Although there may not be any viable output, 'work' is being done. It may only be the displacement of mass by the lever being displaced in its up and down motion. This is considered work. question; did not Milkovic substantiate this by pumping water?
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/DefinitionWork.html

Von Braun was just such a person. He wore his dream on his sleeve. He went to incredible lengths, overcoming impossible odds to bring his dream to fruition. For he, in essence, went to the moon. He wrote articles in Popular Science to inspire other people. He was a positive person.

I had the privilege of meeting the man in 1958, I attended a seminar he gave on missile guidance systems used in that era. Somewhere around here I have a 1959 edition of 'Electronics Illustrated' where he was interviewed on the subject.

Von Braun was a man with an outgoing personality of the kind I have never met. He was my inspiration, I continued correspondence with him for a short time via his secretary regarding the use of magnets employed in a gyroscope/pendulum guidance sensor.   

Ralph