I'm not sure if this device is or is not OU, but I'm impressed to the point that I want to try to build a replica!!

I'll put down to example of why I think it is OU.

1) Let's talk about a gas engine and an alternator.  The engine is connected FIRMLY to the alternator pulley, to the point that when you turn the alternator by hand, the force will make the engine turn...  The engine doesn't need to give a lot of energy to make the alternator to turn when there is no load on it.  But if you put a load on the alternator (retrieving energy from it), a COUNTERFORCE will slow down the engine, since they are firmly connected.  Extracting too much energy of the alternator may even lead to engine stalling...

2) The pendulum is not OU.  Nor the lever is!   We ALL know that.  The interesting thing in the Milkovic device is that energy is easily transferred to the lever, but the lever cannot swing back the same COUNTERFORCE to the pendulum, since the connection between the two of them is "quite interesting" !!!  In the end, ALL of the energy that the pendulum GIVES (on the way down) is used to make the other end of the lever to go up (less friction, for sure!!).  Then, the lever can extract work from gravity, and is going down.  The energy extracted from gravity SHOULD be the energy returned as a counterforce to the pendulum, but can't, because of the "interesting connection"... so this energy is extractable from the device for us, without affecting the input side.  And what did the pendulum used to give energy to the lever : it's own mass!  Did he lost it? No!!


Another example that made me thinking, to show that a normal "lever" is different from this device.  Let's say I set up a lever with a 10:1 ratio.  I can lift a 200 lbs rock!!  If I say "Put your finger under the lever" you know I can crush it if I push the lever with both of my arms and legs!!  But you have nothing to fear if I only tap the lever with my little finger!!!!

But if I tap the pendulum just ONCE with my finger on Milkovic's device, your finger will be crushed by the 25 kg of mass of the lever on its way down!!  I can even say : "I can crush a new finger with each little tap of my little finger on the pendulum!!"

WF

You won't know what you're taking about untill you build a model.
It doesn't have to be perfect! Just do the wind resistance demo.
Its amazing to see how much work the lever does vrs pendulum.
Linear equations can not help you understand this device.

I'm so tired of fighting the nay sayers,
~Dingus Mungus

Its not OU yet, but with proper developement I think it's CoP>1.

If it was (which it is not) 12 time more out then heres the simple test, use the level to produce power to manipulate the pendulum, if it can keep going then it is o/u because it is beating friction, if it can't then its not. This device is the swinging equal to the worm and spur gear thats all.

Hi

So all the believers out there: this would theoretically work. I just drew this up quickly at work.

Pretty much when the lever pulls up, it pulls a string which pulls back a small hammer, which is pushing against a spring. It passes over a one way clip, which stops it from releasing and is held there. When the pendulum reaches the top and is near the hammer, the lever goes down and it pulls the other string, which pulls the clip and releases the hammer, which pushes the pendulum forward.

Note this is a pretty simple drawing, and would require a lot of tweaking, and pully ratios etc.. but you get the basic idea.

It would need to be atleast 200% efficiant to work like this, as the hammer will get pulled and released when the pendulum is at the other end of its swing aswell, meaning no benifit to the system. if you had a 2 independent pendilum/leaver systems hooked up to the same hammer, but the hammer had a fork shape, and swung the pendulums at opposite ends, it would only need to be 100% efficiant, as it would push each pendulum with each swing.

I hope you can understand this 

Greets from Japan

Improving the Milkovic system.

Please read:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2794.msg41011.html#msg41011

Who can help to pass this message to Milkovic?

Regards,

Lawrence Tseung

Ok.

Question.

Why is the flashlight thing touted as an amazing proof for the machine?

You/He appears to interpret as energy, only the period a flashlight is on or in fact the light from the flashlight itself, with no regards to the speed he brings (his) flashlight in. I think that he vastly underestimates the energy he is inputing, which is far greater than just pressing the dynamo button on the other flashlight.

That energy, does not come from closing the contact, (that would require just to press it with your finger, then put it near the pendulum, and release it allowing the button to hit the pendulum. Then you could claim that you have inputed into the system energy equal with the one needed to make one flashlight turn on) it comes from his arm, which in turn comes from bio/chemical reactions releasing enough energy to accelerate the mass of said arm, and ultimately the mass of the flashlight, which collides with the hanging pendulum, which then gets transfered (that biochemical energy) to the entire mass of the pendulum. Energy, far, far greater than the pressing of the dynamo button.
In fact, with the flashlights are on or off is quite irrelevant, a much better measurement to take would be heat. The heat produced by the collision of his flashlight to the hanging pendulum, and the heat produces by the collisions of the hammer to the other flashlight.

You see, he appears to be thinking over this, as the energy that takes to pressing the dynamo button, when in reality, you have there one flashlight getting its dynamo button pressed, and another flashlight getting its button pressed, moving at a speed. Their energy is not equal.

Barely lit, is not how I would describe the shoving shown here: http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Video/Veljko_Milkovic_(video-7)_Universal_oscillator-generator.wmv

Once again, the light is irrelevant, it does not represent the energy provided by the act of the mass of the flashlight (AND arm) colliding at a speed with the pendulum. How long it stays on, doesn't provide any information on how "hard" it was pushed. Also, don't forget that those lights, light up at the act of being pushed, not on them button remaining pushed. As a result, any light colliding with the pendulum, would only light up only during the initial collision and then would turn off while you could still provide for the rest of a second as acceleration.

If anything, pushing away while the object is in it's away swing, is the best, this way you can provide a very gentle acceleration for a significant amount of time that will add to the objects energy (as opposed to a collision with the object coming at you which would also risk canceling some of it's kinetic energy) while maintaining the illusion that is insignificant. You collide, flash light turns on-off and then you continue the movement with your arm, but this time your arm charging with energy the entire mass of the pendulum. The energy seems insignificant to us, because arm muscles are strong and so we concider the act of shoving such big a mass as an army and letting it "rest" (from our perception) on a pendulum insignificant.

As I said, just, truly using only the energy of the dynamo light's button decompressing (eg, by pressing it with a finger from the side, or a string, bringing it near a still pendulum, and releasing it) and managing with that, to press 2 flashlights, or 12, would be impressive.

Concerning coathungers, I couldn't understand very well your device but I assume you mean the same "toy" in the first video in the http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html site specifically around 7:30-8:30

My problem with that is that you/he has no way of accurately measuring the energy he provides with the starting "tap". Presumably he provides just enough, for the vibrations to be start looking "similar" as when unloaded. A more dramatic way of doing it in fact would be to lift the horizontal end exactly the same amount off center in  both cases.

But

It is not the same system any more. Because the small pendulum, acts as an energy storage. Basically, what he did, was increase the mass of the long element. By providing enough energy to make it "start" with the exact same vibration, you have actually provided much more energy. His "tap" might seem the same to him, but it now sets in motion a system with much more mass.

So.

Although the horizontal pendulum alone doesn't fair well alone with a paper.
And the small pendulum alone doesn't fair well with a paper.
When you attach the paper to the horizontal one, with the small pendulum attached to it, what the paper faces now, is a horizontal pendulum with the mass of the horizontal element AND the small pendulum together. And since the small pendulum is also swinging, also it, being an energy storing device (almost like a winding spring) for the horizontal element.




 

Again my point is still: the required input pressure of the pendulum (while in swing) is a LOT less than that required to power 12 flashlights at once... Would you agree?

Not really. Levers can be impressive like that. Let me give you my favorite example. The door.

A well oiled door, needs only a "slight" touch to move, something someone would call "insignificant" energy. You could set it in motion by just unfolding your finger.

But, put your finger in the other end near the hidge after someone set it in motion, and you would find it "very difficult" to stop it. Put it in the wrong place and a "slight" shove (which if someone applied directly on your finger with his hand wouldn't hurt at all) might even crush it.

Slight shove from the one side, crashing power on the other, is that an overunity machine? Sounds like it, but it isn't. And if you understand that mechanism you can understand what is going with that device over here as well.

The door example gives me an idea for an experiment. Take something soft, like blue tack, and make a ball. Then put many balls of similar size in the hidge area, and hit the door with a ball you hold in your hand with enough force, to flatten it and watch how many you can flatten on the other side. The energy to flatten, or even slighty deform one blue tack ball on your hand, flatten many on the other side? What is going on there?

This is because the energy given to the pendulum is lower than the energy required to compress the spring. Would you agree? If not why doesn't the handle fully compress?

It does light up, so it does compress. The difference is that his, compresses once, and stays there for the remaining of the acceleration while because in the other side because compressions decompressions happen continously the energy output seems more dramatic.

But wait, there is in fact and a second problem. You appear to think that the energy it takes to compress the flashlight button in his hand, is the same with compressing the flashlights on the other hand.

Well, first off I want to call your attention to another phenomenon. Have you noticed that if you put a scale on a hard surface like marble, and if you put a scale on a soft surface, like a carpet, or over a pillow, they show different weights? What is going there? The carpet stops gravity? Initial intuition would assume that since the energy provided in both is same, they would both show the same amount, regardless if one have to dive inside the carpet enough until it becomes "solid".

But, this is not the case what it actually happens, is that the carpet, acts like a spring, and takes some of the load of the spring of the scale, with the two springs, based on their "hardness", finding a balance somewhere in the middle. Two scales one on top of the other would in fact show half your weight despite, you, providing the same force on them! (plus a scale). And you would need double the force to make it seem the same!

In other words. When you compress a spring against an object that gives way, it's not the same as when you compress a spring against an immovable surface. Your pendulum, is going to act as an opposite spring, as "hard" as the friction in it's pivot point (towards which is also a lever so it gives even easier way), which you hit during its away phase as well, I would say that the fact that it lights up at all, can already represent significant energy.

Yeah that would be a really easy demo to perform by hand...
Plus no one would come in claiming it didn't work then! Roll Eyes

Not that difficult actually. Let me describe it in more detail.

You take a piece of string. You tie it around the dynamo flashlight's button in a way so that it is compressed, you put the flashlight button next to the pendulum, and then you release the spring and/or if you have tied it and for neatness, burn it. That way, the pendulum is going to get one flashlight's button decompression worth of energy, if it manages to compresses even two on the other side, THAT would be significant.

That is all.

I guess I will have to build one myself, just to get the "no mock up model, no talk" comments off my back but I am also prepared to wait the very very very very long time it will take you to ever close the device and make it self-running.

I an overunity lurker, who could trust an electromagnetical device's claims, because they involve quantum effects likes fields and leave space for some invisible "mystery" you cannot debunk, unless you test it. Mechanical devices however will never work, no matter how many levers, how many flywheels and wheels someone hides behind, it always comes down to a geometrical riddle that results in what we know. Objects fall down, once.

Do you honnestly believe you're the first person to come in and say those things?

Those specific points, phrased like this? Yes.