@EVERYONE
Look at FE's simulation and the graphed kinetic energy results I had posted from it. This is a clear and rather egregious first law violation. Any nay-sayers want to help me understand how this isn't what I think it is? I would greatly appreciate any input that will help me understand how the pendulum can share its kinetic energy with the lever and come out with more energy than it started with...

The fundamental problem with comparing the stationary pendulum's behavior with the pendulum-attached-to-the-lever's behavior is that you should EXPECT the latter to have more energy at some points even if the same input energy was given. This is because the pendulum attached to the lever moves downard in its motion as the lever swings. By moving downward, the pendulum exchanges gravitational potential energy for rotational/kinetic energy.  Also, note how in the energy vs time graphs the graph for the simple pendulum has a regular decreasing periodicity and the lines are really close together. However, in the pendulum-lever energy graphs the periodicity is very complex and the lines are more... rarefied or spread out.  This is because the system is more complex and so there are points (at the same value for time t) where, yes, the lever-pendulum has more energy, but there are also times where the lever-pendulum actually has less energy than the simple pendulum.  It oscillates more wildly and between a slightly higher extreme than the simple pendulum (since the lever-pendulum falls a bit and therefore the motion of the lever is connected to the motion of the pendulum) but there isn't any new energy being created. Or, at the very least, this example does not show an excess of energy. The difficulty here is, of course, that it's impossible to prove a negative, so no one's going to be able to 'prove' it doesn't create more energy.

It oscillates more wildly and between a slightly higher extreme than the simple pendulum (since the lever-pendulum falls a bit and therefore the motion of the lever is connected to the motion of the pendulum) but there isn't any new energy being created. Or, at the very least, this example does not show an excess of energy. The difficulty here is, of course, that it's impossible to prove a negative, so no one's going to be able to 'prove' it doesn't create more energy.

I think you are overlooking the biggest whole in your argument... If the pendulum on the lever is introduced with no kinetic energy, then the net kinetic energy for the whole device is zero. The pendulum lever has several times the friction pins and surface area to be effected by wind resistance, yet it swings for longer and with more intensity than the stationary pendulum. To phrase it another way the pendulum lever does more work to sustain its running tempo, yet it runs more efficiently then a standard pendulum that was given the same kinetic starting energy. If the lever pendulum is doing more work and is draining less energy to continue its swing; this is unarguably a improvement in comparison to a standard pendulum. We can agree on that right?

To debate this you don't need to prove a negitive, just that we are somehow giving more energy to one pendulum then the other. I'm pretty positive that we are not, but I encourage naysayers to download examine and test for themselves. Only through understanding will anything be proven. We don't understand why we are getting back kinetic averages of 100-400% of the introduction energy, but we aren't willing to assume its inconslusive without understanding it.

Thank you for your devotion to the quest for answers,
~Dingus

I looked last night but it appeared to be a glitch.
I'll check it out again tonight...

A little hint to save time though... If there is a physical constraint anomely, followed by a spike in kinetic energy or speed... Its a glitch. This 2 arm rigid balance system does not work correctly and is the source of these glitch pulses... Look for yourself and be honnest with yourself, you can clearly tell weather its slowly losing energy or if its magically creating it due to bad design... Basically what I'm trying to say is your last few examples have all been glitches based on the same mechanical glitch everytime... Time for a new approach.

~Dingus

Ok we're on the right track now.

First can we also agree that eventually the pendulum/lever will fully reset itself with the exeption of loading the pendulum, just like a stationary penulum would? Which would mean the only energy required to start again would be loading the pendulum.

Next can we agree that since gravity and not the user is adding kinetic energy to both the lever and the pendulum, that this device puts out more kinetic energy then you put in?
 
with a 'd' please,
~(D)ingus

I understand simulation is a poor excuse for evidence of anything... But, Measuring such variables in physical reality is infinitely more difficult and expensive. In the mean time I'm just looking for patterns in different configurations. I hope to eventually find the geometry required to match the oscilating pendulums and stationary pendulums phase. Once I can get them running in phase, it will further enforce my arguement, show a maxium output, and make a good guide for replication.

~Dingus

That page descibes a stationary pedulum...
We've already realized they're not OU, but
to do the same math for this system would
be infinitely more difficult. Not it!

Thanks for the info though,
~Dingus

Well, the purposed method of measurement is nothing more than loads of friction... Spring loaded catch draggin over gear teeth. Each component would further rob the device of energy. So I don't see it as an accurate or even relevant experiment. Why not extract minimal power from it and see if it swings for as long or longer then a stationary pendulum...

You should ask that websites owner to do the math for my my last simulation and then post their excuses here. That way its clear to the other users there is no physical math backing up their/your position on the site. Only the laws of physics are on your side, and they've been updated and changed a few times...

~Dingus