Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231924 times)

Omnibus · « **Reply #1665 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:03:18 AM »

There is obviously surplus energy capable of doing work but it is produced in a manner which at this point cannot be fed into the input. Making a self-sustaining device is only a technical matter.

It isn't at all a trivial matter to obtain two different values of kinetic energy from one and the same value of potential energy.

mscoffman · « **Reply #1666 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:03:36 AM »

Quote from: mscoffman on February 17, 2010, 01:50:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8&feature=related

I like this one, where the guy lights bunches squeeze flashlights
with his pendulum. All he needs is to take out all the light bulbs
and wire them all together through diodes. Then build the
Bedini motor circuit - a magnetic mirror circuit, and mount a
powerful magnet at the base of the weight to keep the weight
moving.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Similar to this Web Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVCvP53Au60

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bedini-Powered_Milkovic_Two-Stage_Oscillator

:S:MarkSCoffman

Bubba1 · « **Reply #1667 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:19:40 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 03:03:18 AM

It isn't at all a trivial matter to obtain two different values of kinetic energy from one and the same value of potential energy.

You get the same value of kinetic energy from one and the same value of potential energy.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1668 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:21:10 AM »

Quote from: Bubba1 on February 09, 2011, 03:19:40 AM

You get the same value of kinetic energy from one and the same value of potential energy.

In this case you obviously don't.

fletcher · « **Reply #1669 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:27:01 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 03:03:18 AM

There is obviously surplus energy capable of doing work but it is produced in a manner which at this point cannot be fed into the input. Making a self-sustaining device is only a technical matter.

It isn't at all a trivial matter to obtain two different values of kinetic energy from one and the same value of potential energy.

Cool .. I'll get right onto converting my grandfather clock cause it's already doing mechanical work for well over 24 hours.

Just have to figure how I cam mechanically arrange it to use that work output to do work telling the time, rewind itself when the weight reaches the end of its travel & cover losses - dang, that's harder than I thought but it must be possible mechanically coz omnibus tells us that it's a clear violation of CoE & making it self sustaining is only a technical matter !

Omnibus · « **Reply #1670 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:31:26 AM »

No, that analogy is incorrect. Your grandfather's clock is the disc with weight secured at the rim. Winding it will get you that much ticking. However, if you use the advanced clock (no analogy in the clock world yet) which is the pendulum enhanced disc you'll get three days more of work for the same winding. This is more of a likely analogy.

Bubba1 · « **Reply #1671 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:33:34 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 03:21:10 AM

In this case you obviously don't.

Yes, you do. You just don't see it.

Bubba1 · « **Reply #1672 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:43:08 AM »

In the case of the weight on the rim, the weight must travel up to the original height for the wheel to make a full turn. In the case of the lever, the weight only has to travel up to the original height, minus the length of the lever. If the wheel height is 50 inches, the weight on the rim must travel back up to 50 inches for the wheel to make a full turn. The weight on a 5 inch lever, however, only must travel back up to 45 inches. Which one takes less energy?

Omnibus · « **Reply #1673 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:51:56 AM »

No, it will not descend to different levels. Like I said, you can adjust the experiment in such a way as to have the same heights in both cases. I said that already.

Aksi, you may play with different heights in both cases -- then weight at the rim case having shorter height than the lever case and vice versa. In all cases you'll observe almost three turns in the lever case versus the rim case.

So, take what the vid shows as the beginning of your exploration and adjust heights to match (to avoid the subtraction of the lever arm) and you'll get the same discrepancy.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1674 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:52:53 AM »

I will carry out an experiment sometime this or next month and will make a video to demonstrate this important instance of CoE violation.

fletcher · « **Reply #1675 on:** February 09, 2011, 05:11:29 AM »

Omnibus .. this is what you fail to understand.

When the lever is primed Work is Done on it i.e. F x D in Joules - call that the Input Energy in Joules.

The wheel is Out of Balance [OOB] at start position so it has torque & rotates - it releases Pe as it rotates to bdc gaining Ke - it has velocity as it passes bdc & enough Ke & momentum to make a revolution or three which you see & interpret as a demonstration of CoE violation [it is NOT].

Everyone else see's that whilst it makes a few revolutions the Rotational Ke = 1/2mv^2 [in Joules] of the wheel is slightly less than the Input Energy Work Done [in Joules] you primed it with - each revolution has slightly less residual Ke [in Joules] than the original Input Energy Work Done [in Joules] loaded into the system !

So, Input Energy plus Pe = Rot Ke less Losses.

N.B.1. With NO Input Energy, there is NO long run down time while it's used up !

N.B.2. It is legitimate to use Input Energy [Work Done] to start a wheel - but Output Energy [Work Done] must be greater than or at least equal to Input Energy PLUS losses - substantially greater to do useful Work & then you have violated CoE.

Check these things in your experiment !

-----------------------------------------------

Mark .. the Milkovich dual pendulums face the same scenario outlined above - the pendulum has Work Done on it i.e. F x D [in joules], to prime it - it oscillates & the Work Output less losses [in Joules] is slightly less than Work Input Work Done Energy [in Joules].

The Output Energy is progressively slightly less each oscillation than the original Input Energy with small losses, else it could do work & self sustain itself.

The bendini coil is just a more efficient way of slowing down losses IMO.

MrMag · « **Reply #1676 on:** February 09, 2011, 05:37:11 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 03:52:53 AM

I will carry out an experiment sometime this or next month and will make a video to demonstrate this important instance of CoE violation.

Translation: Hopefully in two months you will forget I made this statement.

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #1677 on:** February 09, 2011, 05:41:36 AM »

@fletcher
nota bene: omnem dimittite spem, o vos dicere cum omnibus.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1678 on:** February 09, 2011, 05:43:56 AM »

When in the two cases the weights are set at the same h and they are left at rest there that means that the priming done is the same for each one of them. That should be obvious. The only difference is the construction but that doesn't take part when energy balance is done. Everything else follows from the clear understanding of that pivotal point -- the equality of the initial potential energy in each one of the cases. The difference further on, once the said equality is understood well, is self-evident. If CoE were not violated there should be no difference further down the line under these initial conditions -- the initial equality of the gravitational potential energy in each case.

fletcher · « **Reply #1679 on:** February 09, 2011, 05:54:06 AM »

Hope is one thing Wilby, delusion is another.

Omnibus will find his waterloo soon enough when he does the experiments.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231924 times)

Omnibus

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

mscoffman

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

Bubba1

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

Omnibus

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

fletcher

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

Omnibus

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

Bubba1

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

Bubba1

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

Omnibus

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

Omnibus

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

fletcher

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

MrMag

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

WilbyInebriated

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

Omnibus

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

fletcher

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