Let us take the case of Galileo - his studies and understanding convinced him 100% that the Earth is round.  Should he declare that fact to the World?  The authorities at that time refused to accept his reasoning.
Some may even ask him to go round the World himself to prove it.
In the case of the QMOGEN, over 50 have been compiled by Sterling Allan.  The best one is the Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier.  That was introduced to me by some one extremely credible - a professor at Tsinghua University and his group of research students.  I did not realize or did not have the conviction to say that the cylinders were unbalanced in 2006.
Now I have the Chan Wheel.  It clearly demonstrates that a balanced wheel cannot lift the weight.  The Unbalanced Wheel can easily do so.  The Physics of adding the Centrifugal Force to the weight of the pendulum bob conclusively showed that the varying tension will provide the oscillation to lift the Weight (and to lead-out gravitational energy). The Output Energy m1gh to lift the weight is definitely more than the energy required to return the system to the original state m2gh.
The difference (m1-m2)gh is the lead-out energy that can be used to do other useful work.
There is no need to build another QMOGEN myself. Helping one or more QMOGEN inventors to improve their prototypes and explain the Physics properly is a much better strategy.  More people will shine.
Galileo was not dishonest when he told the World that the Earth is round...

Hi Lawrence. I think you are mixing apples and oranges when you compare observations about
the Earth to an alleged over unity device. The Earth is right here with us already. We do not have to build
it to observe how it really works. We just need to make the right observations of the already existing Earth to determine
that it is not flat. With an alleged over unity device however, unless you actually build it and configure it to be self running,
you are not able to draw definite conclusions about it being over unity. You only have unproven theories. Since in general over unity
can be very tricky to measure convincingly due to there typically being many potential places that one doing the measurements could make
errors or overlook something, with an over unity device it is pretty much essential to build a device that actually self runs to remove all doubt
about possible measurement errors or of overlooking certain factors. There may be exceptions to this, but for the most part I think people are going
to need to see a self running device to be convinced that any particular device really is over unity.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying I don't think that an unbalanced wheel/cylinder necessarily can't pull in
excess energy into the system beyond what is driving the system. I am just saying that you cannot say that this has been
proven with absolute certainty unless you build one and get it self running. Then all doubts about errors or oversights
can be removed. Regarding the 'QMoGen' devices, there may be 'QMoGen' devices that really do self run, but again unless
you have one right in front of you that is self running that you can fully observe and fully analyze to make certain there are
no hidden power sources, then you still can't say with certainty that said device really is over unity.

There is nothing wrong with saying that based on your theoretical analysis and calculations you believe strongly that
an unbalanced wheel/cylinder configured in the right way can pull in excess energy. That is your opinion, and it is clear to
everyone that this is just your opinion. Hypotheses and theories are only hypotheses and theories until they are proven.
A given hypothesis or theory may eventually prove right, or it may eventually prove wrong. Without proof, there is just no way
to say for sure one way or the other.

All the best...

Hi Lawrence.

... You only have unproven theories.

... Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying I don't think that an unbalanced wheel/cylinder necessarily can't pull in excess energy into the system beyond what is driving the system.  Regarding the 'QMoGen' devices, there may be 'QMoGen' devices that really do self run, but again unless you have one right in front of you that is self running that you can fully observe and fully analyze to make certain there are no hidden power sources, then you still can't say with certainty that said device really is over unity...


All the best...

One important purpose of my posts is to tell the over 50 QMOGEN inventors that they are on the right track.  They can easily improve the performance of their inventions via the use of the Unbalanced Cylinder.  The Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier is an example to follow.

Some inventors with profit motive in mind "accused" me of leaking their secrets.  The result is that I shall not contact them again until their invention has come out in the Market.  Once they know the lead-out energy theory and the unbalanced cylinder, my value to them is over.  I cannot help them to design or build any device  (not even tighten a screw .)

The best way to help the QMOGEN inventors is via one-way traffic - I post the theory and design principle.  Let them improve and shine.  I sow the seeds.  They do the watering, fertilizing, harvesting etc.

Some may post their self-loop devices (some did already e.g Ymnee)...

Please show your mathematics of the pendulum in the case of the Milkovic 2SO

perhaps you should read the rest of this thread, we went over this around the first 20 pages.....

but a short recap on that if you must....

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) and Potential energy (mg*length[1-cos(swing angle)]) of the swinging pendulum always balance each other out, regardless of pendulum mass.
At bottom dead center, however, the force is perpendicular to the swinging pendulum, and E = mgh of the 2nd fulcrum weight is subtracted
from the motion of the pendulum, the energy being subtracted from each side of it's swing ( minus all other appropriate losses).
This results in lower swing height on each successive swing, and thus the pendulum stops.

This is easily demonstrated using two identical pendulums, one WITH a 2nd fulcrum weight, and one WITHOUT.
Start both pendulums swinging in synchronicity, while the 2nd fulcrum weight is held in place, and you will see that both pendulums behave exactly the same.
However, when you release the 2nd fulcrum weight, the second pendulum slows down, and eventually comes to a stop.

Now let's Lead this conversation OUT to the water wells, where this device is used as a pump, by it's inventor::
this pump requires energy INPUT, to keep it running. The specs are available on his company's website.







 

perhaps you should read the rest of this thread, we went over this around the first 20 pages.....

but a short recap on that if you must....

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) and Potential energy (mg*length[1-cos(swing angle)]) of the swinging pendulum always balance each other out, regardless of pendulum mass.
At bottom dead center, however, the force is perpendicular to the swinging pendulum, and E = mgh of the 2nd fulcrum weight is subtracted
from the motion of the pendulum, the energy being subtracted from each side of it's swing ( minus all other appropriate losses).
This results in lower swing height on each successive swing, and thus the pendulum stops.

This is easily demonstrated using two identical pendulums, one WITH a 2nd fulcrum weight, and one WITHOUT.
Start both pendulums swinging in synchronicity, while the 2nd fulcrum weight is held in place, and you will see that both pendulums behave exactly the same.
However, when you release the 2nd fulcrum weight, the second pendulum slows down, and eventually comes to a stop.

Now let's Lead this conversation OUT to the water wells, where this device is used as a pump, by it's inventor::
this pump requires energy INPUT, to keep it running. The specs are available on his company's website.

As I expected, your calculation never considered the effect of Centrifugal Force.  Please recheck your calculations.

Where?

Here:
http://www.overunity.com/15090/dry-friction-and-the-milkovic-effect/


Vidar

The Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier works.  It is prevented from publishing and marketing because of State Secret.

And yet you claim to be releasing this "state secret". The common denominator to your claims is that all we see are excuses as to why there is no proof of these supposed wonders of science.

The Chan Wheel works and I have it in Hong Kong.  It can demonstrate that a balanced wheel will not lift the Weight and the Unbalanced Wheel can easily do so.  The lead-out energy is equal to (m1-m2)gh in case of the pendulum.

By works do you mean that the wheel can execute as many cycles as we might wish to observe each time delivering energy to an external load without the aid of an externally applied energy source?  Or do you mean something trite and silly such as the device moves once and without additional external energy stops?

The Centrifugal Force must be added to the weight of the pendulum bob to provide the tension in the string.  This had not been taken into account in the past.
Please show your mathematics of the pendulum in the case of the Milkovic 2SO.

Over 50 QMOGENs have claimed to have successfully self-looped including Chas Campbell.  It is the Governments (USA and China included) putting their influence to prevent "a paradigm shift" that may affect the National Interest.

Thousands of Nigerian "princes" claim to have security cases in London and Amsterdam just waiting for some "trustworthy" partner to claim them.  No "QMOGEN" has ever been demonstrated to actually produce surplus energy.

[/b]I believe Lee Cheung Kin is right.  Governments have applied the technology in the Military applications.  They are far ahead compared with what we are presenting here today.

Spend US$100 or so.  Buy an old bicycle wheel and a lead weight.  Build a Frame and lever system similar to the Chan Wheel.  Prove to yourself that both the Milkovic 2SO and Chan Wheel are lead-out energy devices.

You said that $100,000 for the purchase of a WITTS QEG was no problem.  Why haven't you spent the $100. you say is all that is needed to prove these devices are all that you claim? 

I thought that this is questioned, and is thought to be a basis for OU. (EVGRAY yahoo group etc).

It's ok to question, but nature will probably not change for that reason.

Vidar.

Force that is normal to the direction of motion exchanges no work.

So basically, a lever does no work?