Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2223705 times)

ltseung888 · « **Reply #2895 on:** March 12, 2015, 10:10:39 PM »

Quote from: Void on March 12, 2015, 02:41:36 PM

Hi Lawrence. The large flywheel in the video may well be from a commercial source such as a flywheel designed
for some industrial machinery. Also, it seems highly doubtful to me that a small imbalance in a flywheel
would cause the device to be over unity. If there was any significant imbalance in the flywheel then the
flywheel would likely cause very noticeable shaking in the frame. Sorry, but you appear to be really reaching to try to
justify your ideas, but the fact is if at least some 'QMogens' which do not use any unbalanced wheels or unbalanced
cylinders really do work as claimed, then it is simply not known (at least publicly) what is causing them to work.
All the best...

I shall focus on using the traditional physics to explain the Milkovic 2SO. Look at the attached slide again.

If we replace m1 with a spring, the up and down motion will still be shown. The lead-out energy will be "stored" in the spring. The oscillation motion will still be evident. At high rotational speeds, the amplitude of oscillation is expected to be less. The centrifugal force would be so large that its effect will be more than that of gravity. The lead-out energy, if not properly used, will cause violate shaking (as observed).

This oscillation energy can be transferred - thus using another axle as in some QMOGEN is a possible solution.

Understanding the workings of the Milkovic leads to the understanding of the QMOGEN.

MarkE · « **Reply #2896 on:** March 12, 2015, 10:14:04 PM »

Lawrence, cycle to cycle no work is done. Why do you keep perpetuating the lie that work is done? After one complete cycle the machine is back to where it started and nothing has changed in the external environment. N-O W-O-R-K has been done.

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #2897 on:** March 12, 2015, 10:57:24 PM »

The force imparted by the moving pendulum is always tangential to the path of motion ( orange arrows)
The purple line represents the path a normal pendulum would travel, the red arch shows the path the milkovic pendulum system operates in.
If we divide the period (T) into 4 parts, and analyze the force during each part,
When the pendulum begins, (1/4T) the force is mostly in the horizontal vector, having little or no effect on the leveraged mass to be lifted.
we see that as the pendulum approaches bottom dead center (2/4T)
the force increases as the tangential vectors into alignment with the gravitational (perpendicular) force.
Then as the pendulum leaves the bottom center (3/4T), the force decreases as the tangential vector heads towards the horizontal in the other direction. And finally as it approaches the other end of its swing (4/4T) the force is almost completely in the horizontal again.

Now, during the middle two 4th's (2/4T and 3/4T),
as the pendulum follows the red path, the vertical distance covered (blue) indicates the height or distance over which this force worked.
Force x Distance This is the equivalent to the force x distance opposing gravity on the other end of the lever, the work done to the weight.
unless you created a perfectly symmetrical weight and lever system, these are probably different forces over different distances, but the energy value (Joules, or Newton-Meters) is equivalent.

here is a some explanation of the tangential force of the pendulum:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-0/Pendulum-Motion

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node140.html

and a period calculator
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pend.html

and heres my diagram:

MarkE · « **Reply #2898 on:** March 12, 2015, 11:02:14 PM »

Or more simply: Absent adding energy, at the end of each cycle the stored energy in the pendulum is no greater (actually a little smaller) than at the start of the cycle. In Lawrence's examples the pendulum does not perform any net external work. Some energy gets shifted into GPE of the heavier weight, but only temporarily before that energy is shifted back out of the GPE of that weight.

Paul-R · « **Reply #2899 on:** March 13, 2015, 04:16:00 PM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on March 12, 2015, 10:10:39 PM

I shall focus on using the traditional physics to explain the Milkovic 2SO. Look at the attached slide again.

If we replace m1 with a spring, the up and down motion will still be shown ...

This apparatus is what I use to determine how much oatmeal to mix with 150ml of water to make my oatcakes, which I thoroughly recommend for healthy bowels and cholestrol reduction.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #2900 on:** March 13, 2015, 08:21:08 PM »

Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 12, 2015, 10:57:24 PM

The force imparted by the moving pendulum is always tangential to the path of motion ( orange arrows)
The purple line represents the path a normal pendulum would travel, the red arch shows the path the milkovic pendulum system operates in.
If we divide the period (T) into 4 parts, and analyze the force during each part,
When the pendulum begins, (1/4T) the force is mostly in the horizontal vector, having little or no effect on the leveraged mass to be lifted.
we see that as the pendulum approaches bottom dead center (2/4T)
the force increases as the tangential vectors into alignment with the gravitational (perpendicular) force.
Then as the pendulum leaves the bottom center (3/4T), the force decreases as the tangential vector heads towards the horizontal in the other direction. And finally as it approaches the other end of its swing (4/4T) the force is almost completely in the horizontal again.

Now, during the middle two 4th's (2/4T and 3/4T),
as the pendulum follows the red path, the vertical distance covered (blue) indicates the height or distance over which this force worked.
Force x Distance This is the equivalent to the force x distance opposing gravity on the other end of the lever, the work done to the weight.
unless you created a perfectly symmetrical weight and lever system, these are probably different forces over different distances, but the energy value (Joules, or Newton-Meters) is equivalent.

here is a some explanation of the tangential force of the pendulum:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-0/Pendulum-Motion

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node140.html

and a period calculator
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pend.html

and heres my diagram:

Good.

Start thinking circular motion. You will have to consider Centrifugal Force.

1. You will look at William Skinner Device in a new light.
2. You will compare a pendulum with an Unbalanced Wheel. You will realize that the pendulum is effectively a subset of Unbalanced Wheel.
3. You will realize the Unbalanced Wheel is a subset of the Unbalanced Cylinder.
4. Before you accuse the over 50 QMOGEN inventions as hoaxes, think again.
5. Think of the jumping up and down of the trampoline. Is it possible that gravitational energy is lead-out by the athletes?
6. When you jump, make your weight coming down higher (Centrifugal Force is added). Make your weight going up less (Centrifugal Force is subtracted). Will you keep jumping higher on perfect renounce? Would you have lead-out or brought-in gravitational energy?
7. You cannot rotate but an Unbalanced Wheel or Cylinder can easily do so. However, you or an athlete can jump at the precise moment effectively increasing the rebounding force.

8. The Milkovic 2SO works on changing Centrifugal Forces...
9. No Physics Laws are violated in a lead-out energy device. (see Skinner and RHEAD video again.)

Lawrence
see reply 2826

ltseung888 · « **Reply #2901 on:** March 13, 2015, 11:20:02 PM »

Quote from: webby1 on March 13, 2015, 08:48:10 PM

Where does the CF come from,, it comes from the velocity of the weight traveling around an orbit,, how does the weight get that velocity,, from gravity AND the pivot for the arm causing the weight to gain velocity in the path of the orbit.

When the lever is allowed to move down with the weight the increase in the orbit velocity goes down as well, the force from gravity that WAS increasing that velocity is now being used to accelerate the weight straight down,, well more down than around.

This is the EXACT reason I suggested that you do the one way clutch or bearing tests.

You will find that the pendulum will not even make it back to the starting angle relative to the arm,, and then it has the second value of drop from the arm moving.

I have done these tests,, many years ago and many many times.

I have played a lot with the Skinner setup.

*** Do you mind sharing the results? The Skinner setup is a clear case of using gravitational energy via Unbalanced Wheels.

I am currently playing with other setups.

I am not saying that gravity can not be used as the source of force needed to make useable work,, what I am saying is the method and interactions you are talking about I have tried exactly and I was never able to even get them to a net zero condition,, they all stopped by themselves.

The reason that you were not able to get them to a net zero position is as follows:

1. The Milkovic 2SO can only lead-out a small amount of gravitational energy. It relies on the swing or oscillation of pendulum. The number of swings per unit time is governed by the length of the string. That cannot be changed easily.

2. Once you use the Chan Wheel, you effectively replace the Pendulum with an Unbalanced Wheel. The rotational speed of the Unbalanced Wheel can be hundreds or thousand times that of the pendulum.

3. The Centrifugal Force varies as the square of the angular velocity. Once you increase the rotational speed, the Centrifugal Force will also increase. The quantity of lead-out gravitational energy will also increase.

4. You can easily improve the performance with the use an Unbalanced Cylinder. That is the Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier QMOGEN. That is the State Secret of China.

5. If you do the experiment outside China and that you are NOT a Chinese Citizen, you do not break any laws and will not be "arrested". You can benefit the World.

6. When the quantity of lead-out energy is hundred or many thousand times that compared with the Milkovic case, you can easily harness the lead-out energy. The many attempts to increase the mass and the size of the Milkovic set up are NOT the theoretical best.

In any new field of science, experience and traditional concepts may not necessarily be an asset...

Lawrence
see reply 2826

MarkE · « **Reply #2902 on:** March 13, 2015, 11:51:47 PM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on March 13, 2015, 08:21:08 PM

Good.

Start thinking circular motion. You will have to consider Centrifugal Force.

1. You will look at William Skinner Device in a new light.
2. You will compare a pendulum with an Unbalanced Wheel. You will realize that the pendulum is effectively a subset of Unbalanced Wheel.
3. You will realize the Unbalanced Wheel is a subset of the Unbalanced Cylinder.
4. Before you accuse the over 50 QMOGEN inventions as hoaxes, think again.
5. Think of the jumping up and down of the trampoline. Is it possible that gravitational energy is lead-out by the athletes?
6. When you jump, make your weight coming down higher (Centrifugal Force is added). Make your weight going up less (Centrifugal Force is subtracted). Will you keep jumping higher on perfect renounce? Would you have lead-out or brought-in gravitational energy?
7. You cannot rotate but an Unbalanced Wheel or Cylinder can easily do so. However, you or an athlete can jump at the precise moment effectively increasing the rebounding force.

8. The Milkovic 2SO works on changing Centrifugal Forces...
9. No Physics Laws are violated in a lead-out energy device. (see Skinner and RHEAD video again.)

Lawrence
see reply 2826

And there is no output energy from these worthless devices you keep promoting. Zip, zero, nada.

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #2903 on:** March 14, 2015, 12:34:18 AM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on March 13, 2015, 11:20:02 PM

1. The Milkovic 2SO can only lead-out a small amount of gravitational energy.

There is no lead-out energy in the Milkovic device.
All energies have been accounted for, input energy, work done to counter-weight, and frictional, wind resistance losses.
there is not any unaccounted-for amount of energy to attribute to this "lead-out" quantity your refer to.
Lead-Out energy is not present in this device.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #2904 on:** March 14, 2015, 12:44:32 AM »

Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 14, 2015, 12:34:18 AM

There is no lead-out energy in the Milkovic device.
All energies have been accounted for, input energy, work done to counter-weight, and frictional, wind resistance losses.
there is not any unaccounted-for amount of energy to attribute to this "lead-out" quantity your refer to.
Lead-Out energy is not present in this device.

It does not matter whether you disagree. The lead-out energy is there. The super-set Chan Wheel leads-out much more. The Super-super set Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier leads out even more.

Look at the William Skinner device. Does it lead-out gravitational energy via Unbalanced Wheel rotation?

Lawrence
see reply 2826

ltseung888 · « **Reply #2905 on:** March 14, 2015, 12:53:11 AM »

The Taiwan Maglev.

One thing to note about the Taiwan Maglev is that it uses magnetic repulsion to "float" the device. There is little friction in the axle rotation. The axle can actually "vibrate" up and down without causing harm to the rest of the device.

It is also a QMOGEN using lead-out Energy. I shall check further whether the lead-out energy is purely gravitational or does it already lead-out magnetic or electromagnetic energy...

Lawrence
see reply 2826

ltseung888 · « **Reply #2906 on:** March 14, 2015, 01:02:33 AM »

Quote from: webby1 on March 14, 2015, 12:51:45 AM

Not by my testing.

I shared a lot of my results in the Skinner thread,, ones I thought were looking good and not so good but in the end with the way the device is presented there is not a gain that I could find,, I would of even settled for a large loss because if you can loose it you should be able to find it. All things I did loose I could account for.

Your rate of rotation leading to a gain also does not work by my testing and a sim that was done to measure values that I could not. You end up with a give and take system and that becomes a net zero condition,, you see a gain in one area but then there is an increase in input in another to make that gain.

I get the math but remember when dealing with things in orbit that there is a cost as well when that orbit is forced into a deviation,, you let it fly off in this direction and you have to grab it,, this is the part you are calling a gain,, but guess what, the weight is traveling in the wrong direction,, so now you have to pull that weight back and then you have to accelerate it back up to speed.

You may use the outside force to stop the fly-away,, and how much of that you use up also means that is the amount of acceleration YOU need to add back in,, see there is the rub,, YOU are putting back in what was taken out.

These are some of the things I have observed from actual builds,, as I suggested, you should do the test and see for yourself.

Once you build the Chan Wheel or the Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier, you will see things differently.

I am not an engineer or a mechanic. I shall NOT build things myself.

There are over 50 QMOGENs and more are coming.

I prefer to work with others who have a working device. Taiwan Maglev is an example. I just help them to remove the road block. Their device is not the impossible perpetual motion machine. It is a possible lead-out energy device.

Lawrence
see reply 2826

MarkE · « **Reply #2907 on:** March 14, 2015, 01:38:57 AM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on March 14, 2015, 12:44:32 AM

It does not matter whether you disagree. The lead-out energy is there. The super-set Chan Wheel leads-out much more. The Super-super set Tsinghua University Energy Multiplier leads out even more.

Look at the William Skinner device. Does it lead-out gravitational energy via Unbalanced Wheel rotation?

Lawrence
see reply 2826

Now you are just lying. There is no output energy at all.

Paul-R · « **Reply #2908 on:** March 14, 2015, 05:02:32 PM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on March 14, 2015, 12:44:32 AM

It does not matter whether you disagree. The lead-out energy is there. The super-set Chan Wheel leads-out much more.

You guys are sounding a bit like ISIL nutbags.
At least you are not beheading each other with kitchen knives.
For this, I think I can safely say, we are all truly grateful.
.

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #2909 on:** March 14, 2015, 05:42:08 PM »

Lawrence:

Why not post a link to your 4-legged stool experiment video to demonstrate what you are talking about?

As you know, I do not believe in your theory as there really has been no experimental evidence to suggest it is valid. (As far as I know)

Also, I remember Forever doing a pendulum experiment that you said showed the lead out principle, do you have a link to that one as well?

Bill

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2223705 times)

ltseung888

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

MarkE

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

sm0ky2

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

MarkE

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

Paul-R

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

ltseung888

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

ltseung888

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

MarkE

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

sm0ky2

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

ltseung888

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

ltseung888

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

ltseung888

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

MarkE

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

Paul-R

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

Pirate88179

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