Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231899 times)

Omnibus · « **Reply #1440 on:** August 30, 2010, 09:44:11 AM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on August 30, 2010, 09:22:18 AM

Your delusion was interesting, at least to throw light for the psychiatric diagnosis.

You're as much a psychiatrist as you are a scientist. You are none of those so the prudent thing is to shut up and not continue to embarrass yourself. Don't waste the time of the readers with the crap you're spewing incessantly.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1441 on:** August 30, 2010, 09:50:30 AM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on August 30, 2010, 09:38:08 AM

There are many other errors in Marjanovic's papers.
See http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.msg244606#msg244606

1) his "theory" is flawed
2) there is no proved fact of OU in Milkovic's device therefore a theory is not needed

We are pleased to see that the point 2 is the solution for point 1.

Who are we that are pleased? You're speaking about yourself in plural? The person writing the above is just one unless he suffers of some manias involving multiple personalities.

Milkovic may or may not have OU but it is not for you to judge because you are incompetent. Incompetent with maniacal tendencies.

Merg · « **Reply #1442 on:** August 31, 2010, 02:43:14 AM »

RHEAD100 is active again with new pendulum drive design. Probably more to come...

New escapement that works for two stage oscilator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBE0d484SFM

exnihiloest · « **Reply #1443 on:** August 31, 2010, 09:32:03 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on August 30, 2010, 09:50:30 AM

...
The person writing the above is just one unless he suffers of some manias involving multiple personalities.
...

You should treat your symptoms, Omnibug.
http://tinyurl.com/yk4oyj8

Omnibus · « **Reply #1444 on:** August 31, 2010, 02:00:54 PM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on August 31, 2010, 09:32:03 AM

You should treat your symptoms, Omnibug.
http://tinyurl.com/yk4oyj8

No, you can't tell anyone what he should do because you're incompetent. No link will help you for that to change. Incompetent with maniacal tendencies.

AnandAadhar · « **Reply #1445 on:** August 31, 2010, 02:08:22 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on August 31, 2010, 02:00:54 PM

No, you can't tell anyone what he should do because you're incompetent. No link will help you for that to change. Incompetent with maniacal tendencies.

Please! Is this of any relevance to others?

Low-Q · « **Reply #1446 on:** August 31, 2010, 02:35:46 PM »

Quote from: AnandAadhar on August 31, 2010, 02:08:22 PM

Please! Is this of any relevance to others?

It is at least 12 times more arguing than constructive input

Omnibus · « **Reply #1447 on:** August 31, 2010, 03:20:39 PM »

Quote from: AnandAadhar on August 31, 2010, 02:08:22 PM

Please! Is this of any relevance to others?

How do you mean others? Didn't you see it's regarding one concrete person, @exnihiloest, who is hindering the constructive input in the thread with his incompetent gibberish.

Milkovic may or may not have OU but that's not for incompetents such as @exnihiloest (and several other misguided creatures) to decide despite his laborious activism here. We need to hear analysis based on scientific arguments and, even better, see a self-sustaining machine.

AnandAadhar · « **Reply #1448 on:** August 31, 2010, 04:06:40 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on August 31, 2010, 03:20:39 PM

How do you mean others? Didn't you see it's regarding one concrete person, @exnihiloest, who is hindering the constructive input in the thread with his incompetent gibberish.

Milkovic may or may not have OU but that's not for incompetents such as @exnihiloest (and several other misguided creatures) to decide despite his laborious activism here. We need to hear analysis based on scientific arguments and, even better, see a self-sustaining machine.

Right!

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #1449 on:** August 31, 2010, 07:20:57 PM »

here

drawing isnt very accurate., but the hammer pulls the wire, the wire pulls the escapement, the escapement kicks the pendulum.
and you have the foundation for a self-winding clock.

Hoxan · « **Reply #1450 on:** August 31, 2010, 09:54:14 PM »

@sm0ky2
good idea, but i think mechanical implementation of your setup is very hard to achieve. The main difficulty is synchronization of pulling wire with swinging pendulum. Wire always need to pull pendulum in the same moment to add energy, in every other case it will reduce it. Everything needs to be calibrated perfectly.

My idea is to use electronic circuit to drive the pendulum. Circuit called magbot pendulum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNn4Ebq7IYU
Beauty of this circuit is its self synchronization so there is no manual tweaking. Magnet passing above coil is inducting some voltage that is triggering transistor to switch polarity in coil to push magnet away. It works for every deflection angle. All you need is enough powerful magnet attached to the pendulum and strong coil.

Friend tested some configurations in working model, i did some in solidworks. We both end up with the same conclusion. Ideal angle of swinging pendulum is 90Â° (180 full cycle) and the minimum is 60Â° (120 full cycle). Only at this angles centripetal force is stronger then gravity force.
We will make some pendulum tests in Thursday with small coil (maybe two) and magnet, and i will post few pictures.

in attached picture you can see rendered model with angles (we will make device based on that model when we finish all tests and get all materials)

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #1451 on:** September 01, 2010, 04:21:08 AM »

Yes, i agree everything needs to be perfectly synchronized, but this is a very simple problem.

theres no need to resort to complex measurements of an electromagnetic coil.
and then figure out a way to generate electricity with the hammer to operate it.

i suggested the "escapement" because its already designed to do exactly what we want it to do.
and has been working perfectly, and with great efficiency for hundreds of years.

if you watch the thing.... the hammer raises at bottom-center. then falls as the pendulum is somewhere off to the sides.
thats all you need.
the pendulum doesnt have to go to a full 90-degrees,
most clocks don't, because to swing for one second you can only have a pendulum-shaft of a specific length.
and since clocks are made in all kinds of variations, to keep time, you simply shorten or lengthen the width of the swings. ths is all done in the gearing between the weights and the escapement. but we're not building a clock, we dont really care when the pendulum gets its pull.

all you need to do is make is so when the hammer falls back down after beig lifted.... it pulls the wire and gives a tug on the escapement.
-----------------------------------

all it has to do is keep swinging.
if this is really " 12 times OU", that shouldn't be much of a problem...

the pendulum goes back as far as yr 100 A.D.
the escapement was invented in 1656
and the lever is at least as old as the archimedean era
some 300 B.C.

these are all well known technologies..
combining the three isn't the issue..

so what is? Why hasn't anyone done this yet?

exnihiloest · « **Reply #1452 on:** September 01, 2010, 09:33:32 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on August 31, 2010, 03:20:39 PM

How do you mean others? Didn't you see it's regarding one concrete person, @exnihiloest, who is hindering the constructive input in the thread with his incompetent gibberish.

Milkovic may or may not have OU but that's not for incompetents such as @exnihiloest (and several other misguided creatures) to decide despite his laborious activism here. We need to hear analysis based on scientific arguments and, even better, see a self-sustaining machine.

"Scientific arguments" say there is not OU in a closed system because momentum and energy are conserved. This theory always verified until now would be to revise only if it became not in agreement with new facts and observations.
As there is not one fact about Milkovic's device showing us OU, Milkovic's device has to be considered as a conventional device without OU, until proof of the contrary.

Not only you don't understand the laws of physics, Omnibug, but also you don't understand the basic scientific methodology. And not only you don't understand the basic rational and scientific methodology, Omnibug, but also you are spending your time in personal attacks.
Ignorant and vindictive people like you, are a waste of time for all goodwill analysts and experimenters.

AnandAadhar · « **Reply #1453 on:** September 01, 2010, 11:59:36 AM »

Quote from: sm0ky2 on August 31, 2010, 07:20:57 PM

here

drawing isnt very accurate., but the hammer pulls the wire, the wire pulls the escapement, the escapement kicks the pendulum.
and you have the foundation for a self-winding clock.

I have tested this, see my previous posts and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJsXLiLNJHA , the hammer loaded a flywheel storing its energy and the flywheel was timed to push back to the pendulum. So a kind of escapement was created as you suggest. I found no overunity, even though my design could be improved. So my conclusion is not definite. I am still trying to improve this. It appears that three elements are needed: 1 the two-phase pendulum with the hammer driving a stator, 2 a rotor responding and storing the energy and 3 a transfer from the rotor of cyclic into linear movement in which the feedback pulse is discharged back to the pendulum at the right time and position.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1454 on:** September 01, 2010, 01:18:27 PM »

Quote from: exnihiloest on September 01, 2010, 09:33:32 AM

"Scientific arguments" say there is not OU in a closed system because momentum and energy are conserved. This theory always verified until now would be to revise only if it became not in agreement with new facts and observations.
As there is not one fact about Milkovic's device showing us OU, Milkovic's device has to be considered as a conventional device without OU, until proof of the contrary.

Not only you don't understand the laws of physics, Omnibug, but also you don't understand the basic scientific methodology. And not only you don't understand the basic rational and scientific methodology, Omnibug, but also you are spending your time in personal attacks.
Ignorant and vindictive people like you, are a waste of time for all goodwill analysts and experimenters.

The scientific truth is exactly the opposite. You, however, are incompetent to understand it, you're not a scientist and therefore you should't make pronouncements on scientific matters. Stop spewing yiur nonsense in the threads of this forum.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231899 times)

Omnibus

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

Omnibus

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

Merg

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

exnihiloest

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

Omnibus

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

AnandAadhar

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

Low-Q

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

Omnibus

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

AnandAadhar

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

sm0ky2

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

Hoxan

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

sm0ky2

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

exnihiloest

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

AnandAadhar

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

Omnibus

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