All,
If indeed output is greater than input as so nicely demonstrated with the squeeze-lamps by its inventor on video's (don't have them handy now), how hard would it be to gather some electricity from the output, and use it to, pinball machine style, give the pendulum a small push, perhaps even twice a full swing?
It seems that all that's needed is then one or a few initial pushes, and the thing could sustain itself, as well as doing some useful work on top of that?
The pinball setup would ensure good impuls, at exactly the right time. One could even devise a secundary pendulum, to let the actuator be amplitude-independent. But carefully monitoring work done should realtively easily be able to keep the pendulum swinging with it's uptimum range.
I can imagine closing the loop mechanically, but that seems to stumble on more timing issues. If such a loop has been closed before, please point me to coverage of that?

Thanks,

J

It's all about timing!

Cloxxki:

Try look at this interesting ball-clock system.

http://www.betrisey.ch/ecyclo.htm

All,
If indeed output is greater than input as so nicely demonstrated with the squeeze-lamps by its inventor on videos.

How does the squeeze lamp demo prove anything?  Yes, the flashlight in hand lights up, and all the other bulbs light up.  So what?  The human hand is putting in way more energy than what is output.  Suppose the flashlight in the hand was broken and did not light up?  The experiment would not be any different.

Well, nobody... Studying the pendulum to drive a flywheel, I've also studied the two-phase pendulum of Milkovic, and looped the two phase pendulum succesfully with a flywheel and a feedback magnet pulsing back the pendulum, but it gave no overunity in my set-up. It works indeed as he demonstrates, the pendulum being pushed can drive a wheel or a pump. But claiming overunity here is a bridge too far to my opinion. Milkovic inertial oscillator is inspiring though. The principle works best if you create a disc with a weight positioned on one side and then vibrate the axis in a linear fashion. That easily gives a turning rotor. Thus it is suited for converting a linear movement into a cyclic one. Inertial oscillation is a principle used by Finsrud also in His perpetuum mobile. His ball is the weight oscillating the central pendulum in his machine. So there is a connection with PM and OU. But gravity (like magnetism) alone is conservative and will not deliver energy without engaging magnetism actively with this gavitational oscillator e.g..   That is my conclusion as yet.


My Milkovic replication Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJsXLiLNJHA
My Finsrud analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9GucVwc36Q

very good work !!

@AnandAadhar,

Thank you very much for posting these videos. You are doing a great job and it should be encouraged. I wish there were more people like you and in this way the world will recognize sooner these discoveries.

As you may know, I visited Finsrud personally and then posted two ~45min videos of his perpetuum mobile also presenting it as the first openly demonstrated perpetuum mobile in history. There are still some subtleties, however, brought about by critics (I'm, of course, ignoring the general unsubstantiated negativism by a great many self-proclaimed experts) which I think need to be addressed and I'd like to ask you about your opinion.

One critic claimed that this is just a very efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy. As you know, this is not a self-starter but Finsrud has to push the ball along the track initially in order to start the machine. If it really is only an efficient re-distributor of that initially imparted energy it may go on turning for quite a few days but it will inevitably stop at one point. I know his explanation for that ceasing of motion claiming that's only due to wearing out of the parts and thus changing the initial mechanical conditions. Also, there's dust, humidity, change of temperature etc. which may play a role. But, still, supposing such factors as the stopping mechanism isn't enough as proof.

Second critic insisted that Finsrud is winding up the machine when cleaning the track with a cloth before the initial push. There's one large spring in the center (besides the many other springs which the device is sprinkled with) which that critic claims to be the driving spring after winding it up.

How would you address these two points?

@AnandAadhar,

Thank you very much for posting these videos. You are doing a great job and it should be encouraged. I wish there were more people like you and in this way the world will recognize sooner these discoveries.

As you may know, I visited Finsrud personally and then posted two ~45min videos of his perpetuum mobile also presenting it as the first openly demonstrated perpetuum mobile in history. There are still some subtleties, however, brought about by critics (I'm, of course, ignoring the general unsubstantiated negativism by a great many self-proclaimed experts) which I think need to be addressed and I'd like to ask you about your opinion.

One critic claimed that this is just a very efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy. As you know, this is not a self-starter but Finsrud has to push the ball along the track initially in order to start the machine. If it really is only an efficient re-distributor of that initially imparted energy it may go on turning for quite a few days but it will inevitably stop at one point. I know his explanation for that ceasing of motion claiming that's only due to wearing out of the parts and thus changing the initial mechanical conditions. Also, there's dust, humidity, change of temperature etc. which may play a role. But, still, supposing such factors as the stopping mechanism isn't enough as proof.

Second critic insisted that Finsrud is winding up the machine when cleaning the track with a cloth before the initial push. There's one large spring in the center (besides the many other springs which the device is sprinkled with) which that critic claims to be the driving spring after winding it up.

How would you address these two points?

Thank you the same for posting your video's. I still wonder since what a visit of mine might add to yours.  As for those points:
Well, first of all Finsrud's machine runs for quite some more time than a few days, even though there is dust collected on the track. isn't it months? Also regular realignment of the magnets seems to be necessary. This is normal maintenance. Not an energizing action. In my opinion he has mechanically found the definition of time as the found restlessness between the basic forces of gravity and magnetism in a decreased probability of equiibrium. He is one of the few who throws light on this matter of time as a direct source of material energy.  One replication suffices to change the world of physics. Till then it is just kinetic artwork with possibly a hidden drive in the base. But I personally don't think he lies. He does not have the psychological profile of a sociopath. He is married, has children and a regular job as an art teacher.

Critical point two, studying the mechanism the spring isn't loaded but pressured by the weight of the setup. So there is no winding up with a gradual release as far as I am concerned.

You should move the discussion on Milkovic's oscillator to the main topic, so that others can follow every new progress in one place
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.1380

@AnandAadhar

you should read these two papers published by Milkovic team on attempts to mechanically close the loop

Mechanical Feedback Loop Problems and Possible Solutions for the Two-Stage Oscillator of Veljko Milkovic
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Mechanical_Feedback_Loop.pdf

Keys of Understanding Gravity Machines of Veljko Milkovic
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Marjanovic_Key_of_Gravity_Machines.pdf