Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !  (Read 2213796 times)

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #405 on: May 07, 2007, 08:42:41 AM »
Hi all,

1. Just to let you know, ChileanOne and gaby de wilde, that I would be interested in the above mentioned Lagrangean analysis, if available in the near future. It is very hard for me to believe that energy can be taken out of a gravitational field using a ?Milkovic device? because I can not see from where this energy can be taken. But let?s say for now that the device is promising and, of course, I?m just a reluctant person. Am I?  ???

2. Gyula, the reference you gave (http://www.keelytech.com/news.html) is very interesting, especially in the first part but then it contains at least two major flaws: first ? ?There is no way any radio receiver can put a load onto a radio transmitter? YES, THERE IS. In fact, a radio receiver (or simply an antenna) IS drawing more power from the emitter. Of course, the coupling quickly fades out with the distance but the effect is still there. Second (I can not cite because it extends over several paragraphs) ?human ear is very sensitive; it takes a pressure of only 10E-5 N/m2 to hear a sound, so that?s why hearing a radio broadcast with a passive receiver is possible; it requires tiny amounts of energy. That?s being said, I would be circumspect in taking the article as reference?

3. The whole problem of Milkovic is reducible imho to a basic question. It is known (from experience as well as from Newtonian physics) that a pendulum is in principle weightless at its upper point and it weights more that its own rest mass when crossing the vertical, due to centrifugal force. This is just basics, don?t shot yet. Now, if you give me a truly variable mass, I can easily build an OU machine, by simply lifting the said mass (and thus investing energy) when it is easy and then by letting it going down and perform work (and recovering energy) when it is heavier! If the mass would follow a variation like m=m0*sin(2*pi*f*t), like in a stationary pendulum, the OU device would work. But?

4. If you followed the above, Milkovic is about a device that has a ?variable mass? on one side (on left side, in all of his practical devices but water pump). The problem with that variable mass is that it is no longer zero once you try to lift it. That?s due to inertia, of course. Then, the second problem is that it will no longer weight more than its rest mass once you let it drop free. I don?t know if most can follow me but to be short, the mass is not truly variable and in any case it does not follow a sinusoidal function. So, the analysis may be relevant in makings things clear for us? And that?s why I started with 1 above.  ;)

Yours truly,
Tinu
?In the absence of light, dark prevails?

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #406 on: May 08, 2007, 01:02:02 AM »

2. Gyula, the reference you gave (http://www.keelytech.com/news.html) is very interesting, especially in the first part but then it contains at least two major flaws: first ? ?There is no way any radio receiver can put a load onto a radio transmitter? YES, THERE IS. In fact, a radio receiver (or simply an antenna) IS drawing more power from the emitter. Of course, the coupling quickly fades out with the distance but the effect is still there. Second (I can not cite because it extends over several paragraphs) ?human ear is very sensitive; it takes a pressure of only 10E-5 N/m2 to hear a sound, so that?s why hearing a radio broadcast with a passive receiver is possible; it requires tiny amounts of energy. That?s being said, I would be circumspect in taking the article as reference?

Hi Tinu,

Thanks for your comments.  I mentioned the link because its owner seems to deal with Milkovic's device in a more scientific approach than most of other members here or elsewhere. I mean he tries to give reasons why he thinks the explanations / video demos from even Milkovic or from others are mainly based on show-like ones and I look forward to his approach with having two counter-rotating weights around a common axis. He may also fail to come out with proving the setup as overunity though, I do not say it is a 100% solution, only experiments can give answers. 

I think Ron's explanation/suggestion is ok to circumvent Hans objection but there is more to it.

I respectfully disagree with your mentioning the two 'flaws', I do not think they are flaws.  Why?  Because I think a transmitting antenna radiates its input power into the space it is placed in, it dissipates almost all of its input energy into the space wave impedance (around 377 Ohms) and regardless of the number of receiving (resonant or non-resonant) antennas placed in the same space / room around it, it radiates the power fed to it non-reciprocally: I do not think you could measure any loading effect on the transmitter by increasing the number of receiving antennas up to practical limits.  Of course when placing the rec antennas I assume considering NO nearfield but far field propagation of the waves so that unwanted coupling due to physical closeness of tr/rec antennas is not an issue.

I imagine all this as a current source works: whatever load you place on it the current does not change...  well, in practice this is within component limits of course.

On your second issue with the tiny amount of needed energy: it is true but above I meant on practical limits of the number of antennas can go up to thousands or millions, depending on the wavelength and still you will hear info with the same strength... there will be no load on the transmitter...   

I do not state that you can surely achieve overunity with using a great number of antennas for collecting more received power from a given transmitted power, because I do not know it for sure yet,  I say only that there is no loading effect on the transmitter when doing so.  A good (but rare) example on the lack of feedback between action-reaction.

Regards
Gyula

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #407 on: May 08, 2007, 09:20:39 AM »
Gyula,

Please do not take it personally but I really don?t get it. The strength of the receiving radio signal is in any case not the same whether a single or one million antennas. That?s why radio signals can be shielded by a metallic/conductive net for instance, which is the exact equivalent of ?billion of antennas?. Behind the shielding you will not hear a thing or in the best case ? if you want me to be very rigorous- if you hear something it will be crystal clear that any signal you may detect there is severely attenuated. Why? ?

Ok, now you will probably tell that we are taking about antennas placed on the surface of the same sphere and not about antennas placed one behind the other. Ok but it is even simpler then. Surface of the sphere is known, energy flux is known and power is thereby also limited and equal to the product of first two.

Even more important, by placing a shielding net in the proximity of a radio transmitter, the power demand of the transmitter will increase, if allowed by its own electronics and by the power source. That?s plain experiments I?ve conducted. Almost anyone can reproduce them with basic equipments. And I?ve seen no limits by increasing the distance but strictly due to the detection sensitivity of the power taken by the transmitter. If one can lower this detection sensitivity at extremely low (practically impossible) levels, it will detect that you tune your radio receiver no matter what the distance is.  It is nothing more than resonance between the transmitter and receiver(s), I agree, but for me in order to digest something that I am presented on public domain, I have to see that the author is at least familiar with the field in discussion and that he/she does not make claims that are beyond what are real and already known facts. Otherwise, white and black will quickly become gray and not everyone is able to make the difference?

As about the impedance of free space, it is constant (according to existing and accepted theories), it is variable even in vacuum according to some new ideas (i.e. www.blazelabs.com ? one of the best page I?ve seen around; I?m not affiliated to it in any way but I highly recommend everyone to have at least a quick lecture), but it is clearly variable and just in approximation taken to be constant for others media than pure vacuum, that approximation being made strictly to make our life easier. The approximation works well for air but it doesn?t work that well (actually is far from that, failing to work at all) for water ? just to mention one other media.

Point 2 of my previous message was the least important. Sorry to digress on it.
What about 3 a 4? At least they are on topic, and I was hoping that it will shed some light on Milkovich device for those less familiar with mechanics and gravitation?

Respectfully,
Tinu
?In the absence of light, dark prevails?

Dact

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #408 on: May 22, 2007, 05:36:45 AM »
 :-[

I'm a newcomer here, and only watched the video once, but was not impressed. I assume the lever arm was balanced with the pendulum in place. Ok, so there is equal weight on both sides of the fulcrum. When the pendulum swings and reaches it's farthest advance, it weighs NOTHING, so the other end of the bar FALLS. Nothing but gravity here!

cyberdust

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #409 on: May 23, 2007, 02:17:12 PM »
Hello? It does not only look fake, but it is a joke. What does it mean power (symboled with F in the original diagram) becomes zero, and so it weights less than the other side and the other side gets havier and you have power out put, soory but that's physics that even kids in kindergarten know better. A pendulum gains and loses energy, not F (gravity). It sould be marked with P in all the pictures. And zero energy does not mean zero gravity. It is only exchanging potential energy with kinetic energy. ?No hammer will ever jump up and down. The right side has the equal weight as the left side. No energy gain at all. I hate to repeat myself, bbut all the video is a joke aimed to simpletons. Now that typed, I demand my 2 cents be given back to me for the honour I granted you to enlighten from all your delusions.

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #410 on: May 23, 2007, 05:15:07 PM »

Yes, I?m a bit skeptic too. After many years of device testing, it is not normal, no matter how limited funds are, for Milkovic not being able to conduct better measurements and, even worst, to mix forces, power and energy.

But as skeptic as I am, I still believe that there is something worth to be investigated there. After all, there are at least two experiments partially documented, besides the dynamo-lights: one is that in comparison with other oscillators and the other one ? even more relevant from energetic point of view ? is with pistons. Look again please at http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement1.JPG
and table given in http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement3.jpg
Now, for the first one, it is not clear that the initial potential energy was taken into account neither the fact that drag effects on pistons are more significant at low forces. But for the second one, why is it oscillating the system for 78 cycles as compared with 37 and 21?!!!
Of course, it is still possible that some other hidden factors are behind the above values, but still the ratio is more than two!
What about these two experiments? Can you dismiss them too at ease?

So, Dact and Cyberdust, let me say these as a physicist, hopefully an open-minded one: According to the existing laws, our understanding of universe is very limited. The understanding based on average formal education is even more limited. For instance, most of us were told that since the gravitational field is conservative, no energy can be extracted out of it using a closed mechanical setup. This is not always correct. At a deeper analysis, even classical mechanics predicts that a gyroscope is able to extract energy from the rotational movement of Earth. (Don?t get too excited ? the device is very impractical, almost impossible to be built). But the functional equivalent of this ?free gravitational generator? is a toy you can have and play with ? Power Ball. (Sorry ? I have no intention to advertise).
My 2 cents in return: It would be so easy to say that nothing can be done but if we consider that no one is able to define the mechanism of gravity as of today, would it be really wise?

No offense intended, just thoughts for hungry minds.
And welcome aboard!

Tinu
?In the absence of light, dark prevails?

Dact

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #411 on: May 23, 2007, 08:34:53 PM »
To both Cyberdust and Tinu:

Thank you both for your replies. My short post was aimed at reinvigorating this debate, and was based only on initial observation and an instant analysis and theory, without any benefit of formal training in any persuasion other than classical electrical theory. That is why I enjoy this site, and others like it, so much, as it makes me feel like Isaac Newton, living in a world of the unknown, with apples falling all around. Unlike Newton, however, I have the benefit of knowledge and answers from individuals such as you, learned thinkers who are willing to share their knowledge and ideas through forums like these, which I am sure will quickly lead to the answer we are all looking for. My job is only to ask questions, of which I have many.

Here's one:

What IS the weight of the mass at the end of the pendulum at the end of it's swing?

Dact

cyberdust

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #412 on: May 23, 2007, 09:34:07 PM »
The weights are always the same, and that?s the clue to the mystery. If one looks carefully, the right side is shifted when the left side with the pendulum weight is in its highest position. That means, if the pendulum is stretched, the left side times distance is ?heavier? than the right one, and so it is shifting the right side, whereas when the pendulum is moved to its right highest position, the right side wins the game with the rods. You have always to apply exactly the force needed to shift the pendulum to its highest position. That is exactly the amount of energy needed to shift the right side. It would be quite easier if professor Linkovic used some banal instruments like scales to write down all the forces that are applied to the rods, if he measured distances etc and gives us full details of his calculations and his results, instead of claiming such nonsense. Playing with flashlights do not satisfy our curiosity.



i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #413 on: May 24, 2007, 01:50:29 AM »
The weights are always the same, and that?s the clue to the mystery. 


Let me help you with your understanding.

Hold a 10 Kg pendulum by its pivot point (axle)
Have your assistant lift the pendulum to the three or nine o'clock position.

Your are right, the pendulum will still weigh 10 Kg's... but how much weight will you
feel?  next to NONE, right.

Have your assistant drop the pendulum... when it reaches the bottom how much will
it weigh? still 10 Kg's?  What I am saying is, you might not even be able to stop it
because it could easily double it's stationary weight.

But to be practical a 180? swing requires a lot of energy. 120? is reasonable and
the weight change at the pendulum pivot point approximates the "standing" weight
of the pendulum, ie: 10 Kg's in our example.

So on each upward swing, left and right, of the pendulum, the pivot point on the secondary arm experiences a minus 5 Kg's of force...and on the bottom of the swing, plus 5Kg's of force, in our example. The force needed to maintain the pendulum's swing is relatively the same in any case. But it is the weight change on the pivot
point, that is mounted on the secondary arm, that allows the secondary arm to do work.

Ron





Dact

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #414 on: May 24, 2007, 06:22:14 AM »
 :) Thanks for the explanations! My initial, brief observation of the video only focused on the pivot point, and my conclusion that there was no "apparent" downward force on that spot at the end of either swing, which I admit, I visualized at the horizontal.

One more question. Does the initial energy input derive from the potential energy in the ball before dropping it, the kinetic energy exerted to lift it, or a combination?

Dact

tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #415 on: May 24, 2007, 08:58:27 AM »
If one looks carefully, the right side is shifted when the left side with the pendulum weight is in its highest position. That means, if the pendulum is stretched, the left side times distance is “heavier” than the right one, and so it is shifting the right side, whereas when the pendulum is moved to its right highest position, the right side wins the game with the rods. 


Cyberdust,

This is not correct. It?s precisely opposite: the right side is shifted when the left side with the pendulum weight is in its LOWER position. This happens due to the centrifugal force acting on the swinging pendulum. When the pendulum weight is in its highest position, the right side (the hammer) simply begins to fall under the gravity due to its own weight.

Static analysis of forces involved and their associated angular momentum is not enough to explain the device. Then analysis became soon very complex because the pendulum oscillates in a variable-accelerated reference system. One component of the acceleration is given by gravity (g) and it is well known but then there is the other one, adding to or subtracting from g, given by the lever movement. And the movement of that lever is not easily analyzable because the lever is stopped suddenly when the hammer reach its lower point. This involves a sudden change in acceleration which is felt by (is transmitted to) the pendulum; in theory this is a kind of discontinuity (infinite acceleration) but in practice the acceleration must have a finite value. Nonetheless, it may be muuuch larger than g, thus substantially affecting the pendulum.

Up to my understanding to this day, a significant part of the ?mystery? may be hidden in this very short collision between the hammer and its anvil. Otherwise, all we have there is a system composed of two classic oscillators.

For other questions, please have a look on my former post on the previous page. Here is an excerpt of it:
3. The whole problem of Milkovic is reducible imho to a basic question. It is known (from experience as well as from Newtonian physics) that a pendulum is in principle weightless at its upper point and it weights more that its own rest mass when crossing the vertical, due to centrifugal force. This is just basics, donÂ’t shot yet. Now, if you give me a truly variable mass, I can easily build an OU machine, by simply lifting the said mass (and thus investing energy) when it is easy and then by letting it going down and perform work (and recovering energy) when it is heavier! If the mass would follow a variation like m=m0*sin(2*pi*f*t), like in a stationary pendulum, the OU device would work. ButÂ…

4. If you followed the above, Milkovic is about a device that has a ‘variable massÂ’ on one side (on left side, in all of his practical devices but water pump). The problem with that variable mass is that it is no longer zero once you try to lift it. ThatÂ’s due to inertia, of course. Then, the second problem is that it will no longer weight more than its rest mass once you let it drop free. I donÂ’t know if most can follow me but to be short, the mass is not truly variable and in any case it does not follow a sinusoidal function. So, the analysis may be relevant in makings things clear for usÂ… And thatÂ’s why I started with 1 above.  ;)

Restpectfully,
Tinu
"In the absence of light, dark prevails"

i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #416 on: May 25, 2007, 02:59:27 AM »
:) Thanks for the explanations! My initial, brief observation of the video only focused on the pivot point, and my conclusion that there was no "apparent" downward force on that spot at the end of either swing, which I admit, I visualized at the horizontal.

One more question. Does the initial energy input derive from the potential energy in the ball before dropping it, the kinetic energy exerted to lift it, or a combination?

Dact

Hi Dact,

I am not sure as I follow your question. Treat the pendulum as the motor that drives the secondary arm. As the pendulum cycles it imparts a plus minus force on the secondary arm.This causes the secondary arm to oscillate... within the confines of it's stops. The secondary arm is just a teeter totter. The springs (or the striking of the hammer) return some energy to reverse the motion... the little feet that push off, if you wish.

The pendulum requires a source of input, the one flashlight for example, but the
input is least when the secondary arm is stationary. Increasing the arm travel
requires increasing the input to the pendulum.

http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/physique/perso/gtulloue/Meca/Oscillateurs/botafumeiro.html
 
This is a fun site to play with and shows that the monks were actually raising the
pendulum at the bottom of the stroke. This will put the pendulum over the top!
Unfortunately we are allowing the pendulum to drop at the wrong time... thus we
should not over do the arm movement.... or we pay a penalty.

Ron


 





Dingus Mungus

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 859
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #417 on: May 26, 2007, 02:49:56 AM »
I just want to add something to this discussion, but I've moved on from researching this device. During my months of virtual replication and emulation of the device I discovered several examples where a pendulum attached to this secondary oscillating arm would swing for longer and with greater kinetic energy then a duplicate pendulum. That is a rather interesting observation since the pendulum with more parts/friction/resistance was supplied the same starting kintic energy.

I theorized that the reason for this excess energy was improbability...

Let me explain:
The probability of the horizontal arm being at 0d with 0ke and the vertical pendulum arm being at 0d with 0ke is far less than a single vertical arm reaching 0d with 0ke. Small ammounts of gravitaional potential enery were taken from the horizontal arm when its <> 0d and the vertical arm == 0d, and visa versa.

I know thats a rather sloppy explanation, but one day I'll draw out some diagrams to further explain it. More importantly though... I was not able to find an example that provided anything close to 100% of efficiency, but I did find drastic efficiency improvements when using a duped pendulum to compare run times/input energy.

Remember though... This device is in no way even 100% efficient! If it was even 100% efficient the pendulum would never slow, and if it was 1200% efficient the pendulum would swing faster and higher the longer it ran. So clearly... The title of the thread is wrong. Altho it can make a pendulum 2x-3x More efficient. AKA runs 2x-3x longer...

i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !
« Reply #418 on: May 26, 2007, 05:06:41 AM »
I was not able to find an example that provided anything close to 100% of efficiency[/b],

Dingus

There is no simulation program that models Veljko's pendulum.
Therefore your results are inconclusive... garbage in equals garbage out.


"*"This device is in no way even 100% efficient! If it was even 100% efficient the pendulum would never slow, and if it was 1200% efficient the pendulum would swing faster and higher the longer it ran."*"

But what is your method of extracting energy from the secondary beam and how are
you reapplying it to the pendulum? I posted pictures and video of my on going
experiment.... where are yours? How can you post conclusions when you have no
valid data?

What you are saying with that statement is you haven't a clue as to how this works. 

Ron

Earl

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 435
Transmitter / Receiver arguement
« Reply #419 on: May 26, 2007, 06:55:26 PM »
I believe this arguement does not apply to loadless mechanical feedback.

One can always insert between transmitter and antenna a magneto-ferrite electrical device called an isolator or circulator.  These are widely used for UHF, microwave and optical transmitters.

It should be obvious that an infrared transmitting diode is not affected by any infrared receiving diode.

Regards, Earl