Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231727 times)

fishman · « **Reply #1800 on:** December 20, 2011, 01:27:49 AM »

Quote from: neptune on December 18, 2011, 04:26:49 PM

In my opinion one needs only utilise the downward movement of the output arm . Add a heavy weight to the output arm ,

I agree i found that after watching slow motion frame by frame examination of a few videos. I found that the downward "free-fall" of the weight is at least 40% faster than the rise of the weight. This extra energy is very important when considering how to collect the output of the TSO.

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1801 on:** December 20, 2011, 12:52:56 PM »

Is the claim still standing at 12x output vs input?
A small child can loop such a device, regardless of irratic timing. give the child the manually powered device and a supply of Lego, and it will take about an hour.
12x offers SO much for effciency losses.
The inventor should reduce the 12x claim (to say 1.5x) and then still it would be hard to believe. A device like Rhead's should be working even if there was just 1.1x (less than 1% of claim) to be had.

Here's a challenge.
Let an electronically controlled engine simulating the way the 2SO is claimed to operate. At 12x input, but adjustable to lower efficiency of course. You give a pendulum a tap, and the output lever multiply it 12x that in useful work.
Now notice how childishly easy it is to loop the thing. Even at 2x OU.

The free energy in the 2SO is like a dream running through your fingers. You can alomost grab ahold of it. You just need to believe and keep trying.
It's a fun aid to overcome stiction in a waterpump, but the great minds looking at the 2SO are being kept for more worthwhile projects.

neptune · « **Reply #1802 on:** December 20, 2011, 01:42:48 PM »

The 2SO has now been around for about 10 years ., There have been various mathematical "proofs " of OU , but the best one I have seen is by Jovan Marjanovic . The particular example he examined turned out to be 3.25 times OU .I personally think that Raymond Head is struggling a bit because he has chosen the electrical route to OU rather than the mechanical .
I have designed an experiment which I hope to work on , which will easily prove OU or otherwise .Imagine a classic 2SO . At the opposite end of the lever to the pendulum is a weight .This weight is mounted on a horizontal arm , like a horizontal pendulum . The weight just sits on top of the lever . The arm has a ratchet , so the weight , when lifted , does not fall .During the test , the pendulum is allowed only one swing , from left to right . It starts in a horizontal position . At the end of its swing , it is caught by a ratchet . The beam is just heavy enough at the left side to return it to its horizontal start position at the end of the test .During the swing of the main pendulum , the counterweight will rise , and stay up due to the ratchet . The main pendulum will stop on its ratchet at a point lower than the start point . Measure how much lower . Suppose it is 2 inches lower . And say it weighs one pound . So input energy was two inch-pounds . We can measure the output by weighing the counter weight , and measuring its rise . The same equipment and tests can be used to optimise various parameters , such as how far the main pendulum pivot is allowed to fall during the swing . So for example we find that with 2 inch pounds of input we get 4 inch pounds of output , this will prove beyond any possible doubt that the 2SO is overunity . Better than all the theories on earth . If someone beats me to it on this , and gets it on youtube , Please mention my name . Regards , Ken Hardy .

tagor · « **Reply #1803 on:** December 20, 2011, 03:40:33 PM »

Quote from: neptune on December 20, 2011, 01:42:48 PM

The 2SO has now been around for about 10 years ., There have been various mathematical "proofs " of OU , but the best one I have seen is by Jovan Marjanovic . The particular example he examined turned out to be 3.25 times OU .I personally think that Raymond Head is struggling a bit because he has chosen the electrical route to OU rather than the mechanical .
I have designed an experiment which I hope to work on , which will easily prove OU or otherwise .Imagine a classic 2SO . At the opposite end of the lever to the pendulum is a weight .This weight is mounted on a horizontal arm , like a horizontal pendulum . The weight just sits on top of the lever . The arm has a ratchet , so the weight , when lifted , does not fall .During the test , the pendulum is allowed only one swing , from left to right . It starts in a horizontal position . At the end of its swing , it is caught by a ratchet . The beam is just heavy enough at the left side to return it to its horizontal start position at the end of the test .During the swing of the main pendulum , the counterweight will rise , and stay up due to the ratchet . The main pendulum will stop on its ratchet at a point lower than the start point . Measure how much lower . Suppose it is 2 inches lower . And say it weighs one pound . So input energy was two inch-pounds . We can measure the output by weighing the counter weight , and measuring its rise . The same equipment and tests can be used to optimise various parameters , such as how far the main pendulum pivot is allowed to fall during the swing . So for example we find that with 2 inch pounds of input we get 4 inch pounds of output , this will prove beyond any possible doubt that the 2SO is overunity . Better than all the theories on earth . If someone beats me to it on this , and gets it on youtube , Please mention my name . Regards , Ken Hardy .

we are waiting for more than 10 years

real proof of a working device
not mathematical proof or virtual proof

neptune · « **Reply #1804 on:** December 20, 2011, 04:11:31 PM »

@Tagor .Yes we are awaiting a self runner . But waiting will achieve nothing .I am limited to what I can do , due to failing eyesight , poor health , old age and poverty . In spite of these problems , I am working on building my experiment . Surely a test where a one pound weight falling two inches raises a one pound weight four inches or more is more than "virtual " ? Such a demonstration , on its own is the holy grail that has been sought since the death of Bessler .My hope is that this test will inspire builders .I know exactly how to loop this machine if the Grim Reaper doesnt beat me to it . Why not stop waiting and start building ? Just a thought , my friend .

tagor · « **Reply #1805 on:** December 20, 2011, 04:26:11 PM »

Quote from: neptune on December 20, 2011, 04:11:31 PM

@Tagor .Yes we are awaiting a self runner . But waiting will achieve nothing .I am limited to what I can do , due to failing eyesight , poor health , old age and poverty . In spite of these problems , I am working on building my experiment . Surely a test where a one pound weight falling two inches raises a one pound weight four inches or more is more than "virtual " ? Such a demonstration , on its own is the holy grail that has been sought since the death of Bessler .My hope is that this test will inspire builders .I know exactly how to loop this machine if the Grim Reaper doesnt beat me to it . Why not stop waiting and start building ? Just a thought , my friend .

I have a dual pendulum running for more than 4 years with just a very poor sunday
if it was OU this device had to explode long time ago !!

my time and my money is not free

johnny874 · « **Reply #1806 on:** December 20, 2011, 05:30:22 PM »

@All,
If the enrgy out put was more than the input, it would already be a runner.
It could be his claim of 12X is based on using leverage to achieve a more efficxient pump design which has been demonstrated. I don't think his claim ever has been OU. And from what I have read, that has not been his pursuit. If so, could someone please post a link ?
To that end, here is an idea I described earlier in the thread of using a top or secondary weight with another weight. The secondary weight could have it's position changed on the downward swing swing to stay behind the primary weight. This would cause a change in the CoG of the primary and most likely heavier weight.
On it's downward swing, a tab could "stop" the secondary weight. The primary weight would swing past it. After it does, then the secondary weight would act as if it werte pushing the other weight. The tab could be spring loaded so it would release the secondary weight with minimal energy wasted. And it could be very little. Of course, with an OU device, precision would be.

Jim

edited to add; the primary weight is not shown

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1807 on:** December 20, 2011, 05:32:05 PM »

The inventors have NO IDEA about mechanics, if they can't loop 3.25x (claims drop quickly?)

Lifted and then rolling weights could easily be made to time a looping mechanism out of. I've seen crazier contraptions than that.
The second stage loads a spring, which is unload just as a sensor notices the optimal moment on the first stage. With 1.5x overunity, this will be a self-runner even with terrible timing and energy storage and transfer. I'll give them a few hand taps to get the system going, even after it's reached operating amplitude.

It will be found that less energy can be extracted from the second stage, and more is actually required on the first stage. End result: underunity.

The ever-changing fulcrum of the first stage is hard to get into math, but not a problem at all to administed feedback loop to. A correctly placed lever can tap the first stage at the right place and time, every time, when it's just tuned once and for all. Load the lever with the second stage's huge output. The helper of a clock maker would build this from lego in a matter of minutes. It's only hard if you pre-determing the effect of a succesful build. The second stage digging huge holes, throwing big buckets of dirt high up with each swing, while a child taps the first stage with it's small spade. Nice dream.

neptune · « **Reply #1808 on:** December 20, 2011, 07:18:27 PM »

OK then . I guess It will have to wait until I get it built . The key thing about my planned demo , is that it will give indesputable measurement of both input and output . I do not expect to see 12 times OU , although I believe that may be possible . If I can see 2.5 or 3 times , I am confident I can loop it . The big question is this . If I can lift a one pound weight more than 2 inches , by allowing another 1 pound weight to fall 2 inches , HAVE I PROVED OVERUNITY ?

johnny874 · « **Reply #1809 on:** December 20, 2011, 09:29:14 PM »

Quote from: neptune on December 20, 2011, 07:18:27 PM

OK then . I guess It will have to wait until I get it built . The key thing about my planned demo , is that it will give indesputable measurement of both input and output . I do not expect to see 12 times OU , although I believe that may be possible . If I can see 2.5 or 3 times , I am confident I can loop it . The big question is this . If I can lift a one pound weight more than 2 inches , by allowing another 1 pound weight to fall 2 inches , HAVE I PROVED OVERUNITY ?

Neptune,
Unfortunately, "credible" people in this forum have already made that claim but refused to show their work.
Most I don't think will accept it. Not because of your efforts but because of the frauds who have claimed many things.

Jim

neptune · « **Reply #1810 on:** December 20, 2011, 10:34:05 PM »

@Johnny874 . Yes I know exactly what you mean . I will put my results on youtube , and let people decide for themselves . I f it works it would be very easy to duplictate .

gdez · « **Reply #1811 on:** December 20, 2011, 11:45:15 PM »

Go for it Neptune. Let me assure you that if anything, the tsmo is easy to build. i've built at least ten of them, most of them only took several hours. And it was fun. Sorry that i can't explain my projects in advanced physics terms to you, I'm just a steamfitter. I learn by reading, building and experimenting. The tsmo is scalable and there is know excuse to not try to build one. One of my smallest models was the most impressive to me. Sorry I don't have video of that one, I dropped my cellphone in a puddle and it was lost. Smaller is better anyway, because it's cheaper and you signifigant other won't think your nuts for hanging out in the garage for ten and a half hours. My advice is the escapement route. Who cares if it's overunity? It still is a fantastic device and it just takes less work to get the job done. With an escapement, maybe you would have to reset it every day, but you could do it wether or not there was sunlight, heat, electricity, fuel, etc. If you couldn't physically reset the weight you could use other means, only limited by your imagination. Sorry, I think the tsmo concept is a winner. Also so many people pay to go to the gym, why not pay them to reset the the device for you. Milkovic already recommends that very idea. It just seems too easy to use this device to generate massive kw, even in a compact design. There is no shortage of people willing to work right now and to not go this route almost seems insane.

neptune · « **Reply #1812 on:** December 21, 2011, 04:24:40 PM »

@gdez . Many thanks for your kind words . Make no apology for being a practical man . Practical men are worth more than pure academics . I started work on a small model today . I like the gym idea , but surely the clients should pay you! Think like a Business man .

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1813 on:** December 21, 2011, 04:52:47 PM »

Quote from: neptune on December 20, 2011, 07:18:27 PM

OK then . I guess It will have to wait until I get it built . The key thing about my planned demo , is that it will give indesputable measurement of both input and output . I do not expect to see 12 times OU , although I believe that may be possible . If I can see 2.5 or 3 times , I am confident I can loop it . The big question is this . If I can lift a one pound weight more than 2 inches , by allowing another 1 pound weight to fall 2 inches , HAVE I PROVED OVERUNITY ?

The lifted weight will need to remain at the highest point. Oscillating a 2" or even 4" amplitude is just that, an oscillation, and energy-neutral.
It can't be that hard to move the lifted weight to the input side, to do its timely work once more.

Really, think of ball bearings, those roll so nice on metal tracks. The second stage's output is the lift of a ball bearing from its lowest to its highest point. From there is rolls towards the input pendulum, and loses nearly all its energy there. After that, it gently rolls into its place in line to be lifted again by a second stage oscillation.
That's as simple as it get I think.
The trickest part would be the input timing Best seems to be a spring loaded by the bearing's tap, and then a timed release from a trigger attached to the first stage.
You might need a few lined up bearings to get the 2SO fully going, before engaging the output of the second stage. The input is easily measured: the number of bearings required to be placed a the highest point, after the (manual) lift.
Let's say it takes 5 balls before the output can be engaged.
Ideally, a few input taps would be left out, to increase the "stock" of lifted balls well above that initial 5. That would prove OU as well in my book.

Any overunity could be expressed by the amount of work/lift that could be performed by balls between loading the spring, and falling in line below the second stage. Or even just the height loss in the process, providing all kinetic energy is uselessly killed before its being lifted.

Do I make sense at all?

My predicition is it can't sustain full oscillation without having more input than output. Passionately hope to be wrong.

johnny874 · « **Reply #1814 on:** December 21, 2011, 06:22:41 PM »

Quote from: Cloxxki on December 21, 2011, 04:52:47 PM

The lifted weight will need to remain at the highest point. Oscillating a 2" or even 4" amplitude is just that, an oscillation, and energy-neutral.
It can't be that hard to move the lifted weight to the input side, to do its timely work once more.

Really, think of ball bearings, those roll so nice on metal tracks. The second stage's output is the lift of a ball bearing from its lowest to its highest point. From there is rolls towards the input pendulum, and loses nearly all its energy there. After that, it gently rolls into its place in line to be lifted again by a second stage oscillation.
That's as simple as it get I think.
The trickest part would be the input timing Best seems to be a spring loaded by the bearing's tap, and then a timed release from a trigger attached to the first stage.
You might need a few lined up bearings to get the 2SO fully going, before engaging the output of the second stage. The input is easily measured: the number of bearings required to be placed a the highest point, after the (manual) lift.
Let's say it takes 5 balls before the output can be engaged.
Ideally, a few input taps would be left out, to increase the "stock" of lifted balls well above that initial 5. That would prove OU as well in my book.

Any overunity could be expressed by the amount of work/lift that could be performed by balls between loading the spring, and falling in line below the second stage. Or even just the height loss in the process, providing all kinetic energy is uselessly killed before its being lifted.

Do I make sense at all?

My predicition is it can't sustain full oscillation without having more input than output. Passionately hope to be wrong.

Cloxxki,
I think what webby1 posted is something that might work well with this concept.
Pendulum clocks originally were powered by a falling weight.
If a 2 or 3 section scissor were used, then by closing one arm of the scissors 5cm's,
it could lift a weight twice that. If so, then work to output might be on the OU side
of things. If so, then it would keep the pendulum swinging. I think Vjelko might be
interested. It would compliment his work rather nicely.

Jim

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231727 times)

fishman

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

Cloxxki

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

neptune

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

tagor

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

neptune

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

tagor

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

johnny874

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

Cloxxki

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

neptune

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

johnny874

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

neptune

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

gdez

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

neptune

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

Cloxxki

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

johnny874

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