PDA

View Full Version : Veljko Milkovic' - 2 Stage Oscillator Violates 3rd Law of Motion


Aaron
04-04-2007, 11:21 PM
Newton's 3rd Law of Motion states that there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is commonly believed to be a "law" as all "laws" of physics and nature are believed to be unbeatable. Laws of physics, nature, etc... are simply opinions based on what seems to hold true up to that point and is also based on conditional parameters. So, go outside of those parameters and these so-called laws of physics no longer apply. It truly is as simple as this.

Newton's Laws of Motion (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton.html)

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Images/newton.gif

The first law PERMITS perpetual motion. Basically, it does NOT require that something HAS to act upon something in motion. If a ball is propelled from a spacecraft and it doesn't interact with anything for billions of years until the end of time, it will be in perpetual motion NOT violating any "laws" of physics. This laws only says something will deviate IF and only IF something acts on it but does NOT require that something must act upon it.

The third law states there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction but this is untrue. There is nothing that requires a reaction to OPPOSE movement as it is possible to have a reaction that assist further FORWARD movement increasing efficiency and COP (coefficient of performance). Below is one of the most simple ways to not only defy but totally make a mockery of the third law of motion. Only if a system is closed and both ends are rammed together will there be an opposing force.

Veljko Milković - Home Page - Zvanična prezentacija istraživača i pronalazača Veljka Milkovića (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/)

English: Veljko Milkovic - Home Page - Official presentation of the researcher and inventor Veljko Milkovi (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/indexEng.htm)

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Opinion_Dr_Peter_Lindemann.PDF PDF

Look at this: Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator - A Mechanical Amplifier - Official presentation of the researcher and inventor Veljko Milkovic (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html) for a simple description.

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/oscilator.jpg

:D

This is basically a balance beam where the heavier side of the balance by where 2 is is balanced by the pendulum connected to it at 4. 3 is the pivot point and 1 is like an anvil for the hammer to swing down upon.

As 4 swings towards the left, it gets to a point at the top of its swing right before it swings back where it is weightless for a split second. At this exact moment, the the left end of the beam is much heavier and will smack down upon the anvil. Pendulum swings to the right being assisted by the force of GRAVITY and this balance out the beam for a moment so the hammer lifts up in balance with the pendulum, but the gravity assistance makes the pendulum side a heavier since there is added force in the momentum. The pendulum swings up towards the right side and at the moment the pendulum meets the top of its swing to the right, at the moment before it swings back down, it becomes weightless and the left side of the beam smacks down hard on the anvil.

The pendulum swings down and assisted with momentum and force of gravity makes it heavier than left side of beam and causes the hammer to lift up then pendumlum goes to top of swing to left and then becomes weightless the hammer swings down.

This isn't perpetual motion, when the pendulum is swung, if just left along WILL come to a dead stop...this isn't the point.

The point is that the OPPOSITE reaction helps the pendulum move in the other direction that causes continued motion of the hammer to move up and down. For each full swing in one direction and back to where it was, you get TWO FULL hammer smacks for each full swing of the pendulum. It take VERY LITTLE power to keep the pendulum swinging but you get an enormous amount of work at the anvil side!

This is an OPEN SYSTEM and all the work necessary to put into the system is a little bit of fly power to keep the pendulum swinging, which is virtually nothing. However, the work of the hammer on the anvil is about TWELVE times more than the input to the pendulum. It is open to the environment utilizing gravity to help power the system, swinging momenetum assisted by gravity and other external forces.

This is 12.0 COP meaning 12 times more work is done than the operator has to input to the system of just getting the pendulum to swing. This does NOT mean it is over 100% efficient. It may be 99% efficient and there are still losses.

Losses are the pendulum swinging against air resistance, friction on the pivot point, etc... Efficiency equals ALL the input energy. So conservation of energy is still "obeyed". What the operator puts in (a little bit of fly power) + what the environment puts in GRAVITY = total input. This compared to amount of work being done. That will probably be in the high 90%'s.

COP is total operator input (little bit of fly power) compared to all the work being done and is about 12 times more than the operator puts in so is 1200% of the input by operator. This is 12.0 COP

The rest of the input energy is from the environment.

So a mouse running on a wheel with a pulled fixed in a way to the pendulum could keep the pendulum going and this hammer or other side can be pumping water, hammering metal, etc... the inventor actually had a bunch of hand pumped flashlights and the hammer was smacking down on all these lights producing a lot of light with almost no input on the pendulum.

This is an open system and doesn't violate any laws of physics that related to open systems. Closed system thermodynamics like Newton's "laws" are irrelevant to these system. :thumbsup:

Aaron
04-05-2007, 09:02 PM
Universal Two-State Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier

MUST SEE VIDEO!!

Universal Two-State Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier - Google Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6377655322209610872)

GMC
04-09-2007, 12:41 AM
I am no physicist.

However to say Newton's 3rd law is wrong, based upon the mechanized machinery devices is in error. And plain wrong.

While the guy can make his machine go on in a perpetual state, it is HE that has to sit there and exert the initial energy and continue to exert the force lest his balances and counter balances cease to operate.

If he stops providing the initial inertia, his device will stop.

You are looking at Newton's law from the improper perspective. And is he.

While theorized, it has never been PROVEN, or demonstrated, the Newton's 3rd law is in error.

FOr every action, there is and MUST be an equal and opposite reaction.

IF this were not the case, you should be able to start your car, with a battery and gasoline, as we do now, yet have the engine then produce MORE energy than it needs, thus feeding itself so it will continue to run...or operate without gasoline needed other than to start.

But, much like the mechanical contractions, once the energy ceases to exist, thus the motion will stop.

THis is true in his machines and this is true with your car. Outta gas? You go no where.

Newton's 3rd Law can also be interpreted as: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. THis means, from another view point, that there exists no possibility that any energy can produce MORE ENERGY than is required to sustain and produce continued energy.

Why cannot a computer hold more than 64K in memory base chips?

Even the metals balls that sit on desks that whack one another, sending the opposite ball in the opposite direction will eventually come to a stop.

A grandfather clock needs re-winding.

A wrist watch will one day need a new battery.

The sun consumes far more hydrogen than it releases heat.

This law is why all stars eventually die.

Until someone builds and successfully demonstrates an energy motion that can produce MORE energy than is required to keep it in motion, Newton's 3rd Law stands.

The evidence provided by a guy tapping a machine with his finger to keep it running does little to demonstrate the law is wrong or invalid.

Neat and fun to watch. But nonetheless, if you are in the crowd that says Newton was / is wrong, you are going on faith and not evidence.

As quantum mechanics has now at least theorized dark energy, as being far more prevalent than dark matter, it all adds up.

Energy is NOT ALL matter, yet the matter is dependent upon the energy. Without one, there will not be the other. This is the proper interpretation of Newton's 3rd Law.

Perhaps someone should be re-examining e=mc 2!

If dark mater does exists, Einstein was wrong. Not Newton.

Newton's Law is so true, it even works in the world of Kharma. What goes around, comes around.

THat is how true Newton's 3rd law is. It supercedes matter. It even works in the etherial.

But thanks for letting me blab!:)

GMC
04-09-2007, 12:49 AM
To Quote you:

"The rest of the input energy is from the environment."

You are completely and TOTALLY minimizing as "FLY POWER" to exert the initial force.

OK, so his finger tapping may not be much energy, but what about:

His lungs that must breath to bring air to the lungs so he can put forth the energy required.

What about the 60 trillion cells in his body operating and creating the electrical juice that fires the brain to tap at the right time...

What about the energy consumed by the TOTAL HUMAN BODY he has that without, will sit there and not cause the motion to ever begin?

You are minimizing his energy required and defining it as 'fly power.'

This, to me, is a gross misjudgment of the true energy required to keep the motion in a perpetual state. When you add ALL his energy that enables him to sit there and poke poke poke....it is quite a lot.

And if you starve him of HIS energy, I can assure you, the mechanized device will cease as well.

Thanks

Gary
04-09-2007, 03:33 AM
I believe he was strictly stating that this device outputs more energy than it requires for input, as he was attempting to prove with his flashlight demonstration.

It struck me more as like a pulley type system where much less force is required to move a heavy object.

The most interesting part of the video for me was when the one guy was trying to hold the end of the machine down. There is obviously quite a bit of force being generated from just using very little energy to swing the pendulum.

devices like this may not shatter laws but they may offer a peek into what is possible if the right combinations of things are hit upon.

anything is indeed possible.

Aaron
04-09-2007, 06:54 AM
While the guy can make his machine go on in a perpetual state, it is HE that has to sit there and exert the initial energy and continue to exert the force lest his balances and counter balances cease to operate.

If he stops providing the initial inertia, his device will stop.

FOr every action, there is and MUST be an equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's 3rd Law can also be interpreted as: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. THis means, from another view point, that there exists no possibility that any energy can produce MORE ENERGY than is required to sustain and produce continued energy.

Perhaps someone should be re-examining e=mc 2!

If dark mater does exists, Einstein was wrong. Not Newton.

Newton's Law is so true, it even works in the world of Kharma. What goes around, comes around.

Hi GMC,

You make some good points and I agree with you. If he stops putting in his input, the machine will come to a rest. It is not meant to be a "perpetual motion machine" and I certainly don't want to mislead anyone into thinking this is what this machine is supposed to be. I will clarify.

You mention that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. This is true only in closed equilibrium thermodynamic systems. Basically, closed systems without being open to other potential input. In these systems, you are absolutely correct that the actions within these systems are met with equal and opposite reactions and it is these specific equal and opposite reactions that beat down the energy in the system (dissipate) until there is no more to dissipate and it comes to equilibrium with its environment. This system will always be less than 100% efficient due to losses (heat, friction, air resistance, etc...). Closed sytem thermodynamics apply to these systems as you have pointed out.

Yes, e=mc2 is not an absolute and is only correct under certain parameters.

With Karma, yes what goes around comes around. However, there is a reaction but it is not an opposite reaction, the reaction is in the same "direction" building upon the same movement in the same "direction" as the originating input to the universe. Not an opposite reaction otherwise it would be impossible to attract anything good by doing good or bad by doing bad. Otherwise, the opposite reaction would cause bad to good and good to bad and we know this doesn't happen. This system is an open system and not a closed system and I will make the distinction.

You mention that, "there exists no possibility that any energy can produce MORE ENERGY" and you are correct. This would be over 100% efficient and this will not happen. It won't happen in closed systems and it won't happen in open systems.

Below is from: Laws of Physics - Introduction to the major laws of physics (http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/p/PhysicsLaws.htm)
"Conservation of Mass-Energy: The total energy in a closed or isolated system is constant, no matter what happens. Another law stated that the mass in an isolated system is constant. When Einstein discovered the relationship E=mc2, in other words that mass was a manifestation of energy, the law was said to refer to the conservation of mass-energy, which says the total of both is retained, although some may change forms. The ultimate example of this is a nuclear explosion, where mass transforms into energy."

Please make note that this is specifically talking about closed systems.

"Laws of Thermodynamics: The laws of thermodynamics are actually specific manifestations of the law of conservation of mass-energy as it relates to thermodynamic processes. The first law of thermodynamics demonstrates the relationship between internal energy, added heat, and work within a system. The second law of thermodynamics relates to the natural flow of heat within a closed system."

To understand how the two stage oscillator is absolutely outputting more work than the OPERATOR inputs, please allow me to explain.

There are two terms that are necessary to be understood as well as two very different systems of thermodynamics.

Efficiency = total energy input compared to total energy output
COP (coefficient of performance) = total energy the OPERATOR inputs compared to total energy output

I'll give an example of a closed system and an open system.

Closed system: Lightbulb hooked to a battery. Half the potential that the battery can sustain is powering the load and half is fighting against the resistance, losses, etc... There is no other source of input energy possible to light the bulb or to charge the battery as in a flashlight turned on. It has X amount and it will dissipate all of this until it is in equilibrium with its environment and it is "dead." Lets say the operator put a charger to the battery and put in 10,000 joules of work. Lets say that it produces 5,000 joules of usable work in the form of light. TOTAL INPUT compared to TOTAL OUTPUT is 10,000/5,000 = 50% EFFICIENT. TOTAL OPERATOR INPUT compared to TOTAL OUTPUT is 10,000/5,000 = 50% or 0.5 COP (less than 1.0 COP). All the input was supplied by the operator paying for charging the battery. There was no input from environmental sources as the system was running. These results are what are to be expected and are totally in sync with energy conservation since it is a closed system.
"The total energy in a closed or isolated system is constant,"

An example of an open system governed by open dissipative non-equilibrium thermodynamics: A refrigerator. If you as an operator have a refrigerator plugged into a wall, you are paying for input energy from the "grid." Lets say that what you pay for in input energy is 25 parts. A refrigerator is simply a reverse heat pump...nevertheless, it operates the same meaning that it utilizes energy input from the environment. The heat inside the refrigerator is being drawn outwards and that heat is supplied by the environment and it doesn't cost the OPERATOR anything. Lets say that heat that is pefectly capable of doing quite a bit of work is contributing 75 parts input energy. Therefore, operator utilizes and pays for the grid input in electricity 25 parts and heat supplies 75 parts, which equals a total of 100 parts input energy. Total input is 100 parts. Even in this open system, there are still losses, friction, conservation of energy, etc... and the actual work done to make the fridge/freezer cold is 50 parts work energy. The TOTAL INPUT = 100 PARTS ENERGY AND TOTAL OUTPUT IS 50 PARTS ENERGY = 50% EFFICIENT. The OPERATOR INPUT 25 PARTS ENERGY AND TOTAL OUTPUT IS 50 PARTS. That is a COP of 2.0 or 200% MORE than the operator paid for in electricity. Not 200% efficient but 200% COP or 2.0 COP. Even in an open system, there will never be over 100% efficient but there CAN be MORE work being done than the operator inputs since an open system is open to environmental source of input potential. In this case, the heat is supplied by the environment.

In the two stage mechanical oscillator, the input energy is gravity.

In Bedini's battery charger units, the environmental input energy is the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum or literally space/time energy from vacuum space. I can charge input batteries using 100 parts work for example, hook it up to the circut and charge batteries with it. When I use those batteries on the output to actually run load, it will power a load using a measurable amount of joules that may be 200 joules in work meaning I got out 2.0 COP or 200% more than what I put in. However, the TOTAL input includes what I put in + what nature puts in in the form of space/time quantum potential. The total out will be less than the total input by me and nature meaning the efficiency will be less than 100%...perhaps 99.99% efficient as an example.

Both open and closed have losses and BOTH are under 100% efficient when comparing total in to total out.

Only the open system will be over 1.0 COP or over 100% compared to what the OPERATOR puts in.

Every single electric motor in commercial production and virtually every other system in the world commercially is built according to closed system principles where not only are they of course under 100% efficient but they are ALL under 1.0 COP except for a few exceptions but most physicists and electrical engineers and do not understand the difference between efficiency and COP.

Refrigerators, heat pumps, Bedini battery chargers, this mechanical oscillator and many other devices are all over 1.0 COP and these violate the laws of closed sytem thermodynamics or Newton's laws.

Where the laws of motion come in is that the two stage oscillator is OVER 1.0 COP, UNDER 100% efficient and violates the 3rd law because there IS a reaction but it is NOT an opposite reaction... the reaction assists the system in a way that it continues to help propel it forward instead of having it butt heads with itself forcing it to have less than 1.0 COP and having the reaction bring it down to a stop even quicker.

To learn more about open dissipiate systems or open non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems, please see:
Ilya Prigogine a Russian chemist who won the Nobel prize in 1977 for open dissipative systems showing full well that open systems can freely output more than the operator inputs...the rest of the input is from nature:
Ilya Prigogine - Autobiography (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-autobio.html)
His Nobel lecture is called Time, Structure and Fluctuations and is available here:
Ilya Prigogine - Nobel Lecture (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.html)

fleubis
04-10-2007, 04:20 AM
Yes, posters have it right. If this oscillator was an over-unity device then he should have CLOSED THE LOOP and make a self-runner, but Newton won't let this happen.

Aaron
04-10-2007, 06:37 AM
Hi Fleubis,

No system over 1.0 COP can have the loop closed. Doing so forces it to become a closed system and the extra efficiency is lost by making the output dependend on the input.

On this 2 stage oscillator, the output is NOT directly connected to the input...only indirectly...stop the output and the pendulum keeps swinging. Partly from the pendulum's momentum and also from gravity.

On a gas engine in a car, plug the tailpipe and it will stall the engine. This is because a closed system's output is proportionately dependent on the input.

For example, in Bedini's battery charging circuits, you can get extra work from the output batteries as long as the loop stays open. Like taking a cup and scooping water from a running river. If you jam the end of the river to the input of the river, you close it off and the water will come into equilibrium and stop and all the extra is gone.

However, in the Bedini circuits for example, when the input battery goes down, you can take a battery on the output and replace the input battery. This will work but the system has to be kept open. If you jam the output to input, it closes the loop and kills the effect.

All over 1.0 COP systems must remain open loop. Any "overunity" system that is closed loop is either a fraud or is not totally closed.

For example and auto engine is a closed system, but the car running down the highway is open with the environment meaning the air can push the car along or impede it...so 2 systems one inside the other that has to be taken into consideration.

Milkovic is working on ways to take work from the output and put it to the input while keeping it an open system. I don't know the details but it is in the works.

The term overunity has normally meant a system that is over 100% efficient. There is no system that is over 100% efficient. There is over 1.0 COP and in my opinion, an overunity system is a system that is over 1.0 COP (operator input is less compared to more output) and NOT over 100% efficient (total input compared to total output).

ewebie
04-11-2007, 06:07 PM
I believe Gary is on the right track.

Use the bicycle in reverse. Turn the wheel and see if he can stop the pedals.

The effect he is observing in his machine is a product of leverage. Once he uses reliable methods of measuring "power in - power out", he will see there is no over-unity here.

Inertia and gravity can be incredibly deceiving. Particularly if you add leverage to the equation.

ewebie

fleubis
04-11-2007, 09:22 PM
Aaron, I disagree with your concept. I would argue that there are devices with produce more output and input. If not, then why are we here? We may want to argue about where the "excess" energy comes from, but I weary of this.

Aaron
04-11-2007, 09:38 PM
Aaron, I disagree with your concept. I would argue that there are devices with produce more output and input. If not, then why are we here? We may want to argue about where the "excess" energy comes from, but I weary of this.

Hi Fleubis,

You are correct. There are no devices with more output than input. This is TOTAL input compared to TOTAL OUTPUT. To have a device where total output exceeds total input would be over 100% efficient and there is no system that is over 100% efficient.

However, there are devices with more output than the operator has to input. This implies there is other input that needs to be accounted for. Even so, it is still under 100% efficient.

A refrigerator is such a device. The work being done to chill a fridge is MORE than the work in joules of electricity that went into a refrigerator. This is fact. Obviously there is extra input that the operator does NOT have to pay for and this is the ambient heat inside the fridge that moves towards a lower potential. The heat is free, is not supplied by the operator and does REAL WORK and this work is NOT supplied by the electricity. This is common knowlege that heat pumps and refrigerators (reverse heat pumps) are all over 1.0 COP but still under 100% efficient.

If you add the work done by heat that is NOT supplied by the operator + you add the work supplied by the operator in the form of electricity you have X parts input energy. The TOTAL work being done is LESS than X meaning it is less than 100% efficient.

If operator input is A and heat input is B that equals X the total input. If output is Y...Y can be MORE than A...MORE than the operator input...there is obviously extra energy input by the heat so more is not going out than going in...more work is being done than the operator inputs.

I fail to see why anyone objects to this. The refrigerator is doing this even if we don't agree this is happening.

If you take a ping pong ball and toss it into a hurricane. The hurricane is going hundreds of miles per hour and carries the ball hundreds of miles for example. The work the operator puts in might be fly power...lets just say 10 joules of energy to toss the ball into the storm. The hurricane supplying the rest of the work being done on the ball might be just for example... 100000000000 joules of energy. Obviously the hurricane is supplying more energy than the operator input. 100000000010 is the total input here. Obviously WAY more work than the operator inputs. The ball fights against gravity, air resistance, etc... so there is a loss compared to total input to total work being done on the ball. Therefore it is less than 100% efficient. However the COP is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than 1.0. LOL

The work being done on the ball is MANY THOUSANDS of percent more than the operator inputs. This system is an open system. It is the same as a refrigerator and this mechanical oscillator.

It is a FACT that sharp gradients violate Newton's thermodynamics. It is a fact that open systems can produce more than the operator inputs. This has been established for decades and is known very well by the leading thermodynamicists in the world. Sharp gradients in chemistry, sharp gradients in electromagnetics...sharp rise and decay times..impulses not waves DO violate Newton's thermodynamics.

Everything you are saying applies only to closed equilibrium thermodynamics.

Extension of the thermodynamics of small systems to open metastable states: An example (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=23585)

"Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 October 27; 95(22): 12779–12782.
© 1998, The National Academy of Sciences
Physics
Extension of the thermodynamics of small systems to open metastable states: An example

.............Small-system thermodynamics is a branch of equilibrium thermodynamics. Metastable states are not, strictly speaking, equilibrium states"

The open non-equilibrium systems that I give examples of are also known as "metastable states or systems" and as the published article by the National Academy of Sciences mentions, Metastable states are NOT equilibrium systems that are encompassed by Newton's equilibrium thermodynamics. This is also why the exact title of the article is Extension of Thermodynamics.... that means the current "laws" of thermodynamics do NOT apply to the open systems and this is why they have to be extended. Basically Newton's laws just don't cut it, they don't apply to those systems and they are incomplete.

This book:
Amazon.com: Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures: Books: Dilip Kondepudi,I. Prigogine (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471973947/102-0964424-6340167?ie=UTF8&tag=energscienmin-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0471973947)
Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures
Written by Ilya Prigogine and Dilip Kondepudi regarded as the two leading thermodynamicists in the world explain this better than anyone.

"Editorial Reviews
CHOICE, April, 1999
Kondepudi and Prigogine's book will be a revelation for chemists schooled in the Lewis and Randall thermodynamics approach. The authors provide new insights into even basic thermodynamic concepts from the view of the Belgian school. Prigogine received a Nobel prize for his work in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and the last two parts of the book are based on this necessary part of modern chemical education. The first 14 chapters cover traditional thermodynamics in an unconventional and insightful way. The last two parts are available for use in more advanced courses than a first reading of the subject. Further, the book as a whole presents a rarely accomplished view of both equilibrium and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. A number of problems are included, and the reader is encouraged to solve some of them using Mthematica and/or other computer packages. The authors acknowledge the existence of real data and other information on the Web and encourage the reader to access these sources via Internet addresses provided. A fresh presentation of thermodynamics, which underscores this science as one of irreversible processes. Upper-division undergraduates through professionals.

High Temperatures - High Pressures, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1998
The authors of this book have identified a gap in the range of textbooks currently available, and have filled it, efficiently and admirably. .... Lecturers in physics, chemistry and engineering will find this text invaluable for their undergraduate courses, and postgraduates in the area of thermodynamics will find it essential reading. ..."

The open system thermodyamic systems governing over 1.0 COP systems is not some nutty pseudoscience, it is established fact and the leading scientists in the world have acknowledged this extention to the current limited sytem of thermodynamics that are known to NOT be relevant to open systems. It is only a matter of time until it is common knowlege by the masses and that eventually will be taught in school as being the compliment to the currently taught closed system thermodynamics.

Below is from:
http://cmm.cit.nih.gov/~mago/mystory2.html (http://cmm.cit.nih.gov/%7Emago/mystory2.html)
"The second law of thermodynamics does not allow self-organization and formation of spatial structures in thermal equilibrium. This is so because self-organization and pattern formation in isolated systems reduces the entropy of the universe. Therefore, to form macroscopic spatial structures, the system must be open, interacting with the external world. This is the only way the system under consideration (a subsystem of the entire, isolated system) can self-organize and remain in this condition over time, reducing its entropy but increasing the total entropy of the universe. The requirement for the system being open is very demanding and generates serious conceptual and practical problems: classical thermodynamics deals with equilibrium systems, and statistical mechanics concepts were developed to understand the microscopic origin of this thermodynamics. To deal with open systems (as the ones found in biology) it is first necessary to develop a non-equilibrium thermodynamics theory and a non-equilibrium statistical mechanics formalism to give microscopic basis to this thermodynamics. Such general theories are not trivial and sophisticated mathematical techniques and controversial concepts (e.g., how to deal with the problem of temporal irreversibility in nature) have to be used."

The 2nd law obviously doesn't allows self-orginization.
Also, it is stated for a system to self-organize...meaning there are systems that 2nd law DO NOT APPLY TO, it has to be an open system out of equilibrium, where open system thermodynamics DO apply (but not the 2nd law). It says a system CAN self organize and be in this condition over time BUT entropy of the overall universe will increase...that is because in open systems, there are still losses (must be under 100% efficient). But the system itself can reorganize...DECREASE ENTROPY (this violates Newton's 2nd law outright - Newton's only allows for INCREASING ENTROPY)...because of extra input from the environment...Gravity in the oscillator for example.

Ted Ewert
04-16-2007, 08:03 PM
As with many of these types of motors and mechanisms, trying to understand exactly how they produce energy can be confusing without building one. I will have to agree with Aaron here as I have had some experience with this device.
When a Milkovic type oscillator is first assembled and operated, it behaves much like the theoretical model would be expected to behave. The output is erratic and weak, the pendulum is difficult to keep going and the whole thing is an inefficient mess.
However, it’s a whole different machine once it falls into resonance. The output becomes strong and regular, the pendulum takes very little energy to keep it swinging and you can see immediately what Milkovic is talking about.
You really need to build one and test it to get a better understanding of the principal involved. Then you can try and get it into resonance, which will teach you in no uncertain way the difference between a resonant and a non-resonant device.

Ted

Aaron
06-28-2007, 11:04 PM
like the Veljko oscillator principle
YouTube - Primary Pendulum Creates Secondary Oscillations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgnxMqVAFKM&mode=related&search=)

ashtweth
09-15-2008, 06:16 AM
Guys, check out this toy , its solar in but looks perfect for the Pendulum input, havent found where to get it yet:)
YouTube - Magnet powered pendulum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrKtY7nWc-o&feature=related)

rickoff
09-15-2008, 07:57 PM
The Milkovic 2 stage oscillator is really interesting, and I have always been intrigued by mechanical action devices. Watching the pendulum swing back and forth, I immediately thought how cool it would be to use a Bedini Pendulum with the device. It seems that very little battery power would be needed to keep the pendulum swinging, and that keeping the run battery fully charged should be no problem if switching is employed. Take a look at the smw1998a (Lee's) replication of the Bedini Pendulum, and envision it as replacing the pendulum of the Milkovic 2 stage oscillator, and see if you agree.
YouTube - Tic Toc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iltRit8_89s)

Rick :)

Shamus
09-15-2008, 09:26 PM
According to Peter Lindemann, the pendulum actually kills batteries. There is a thread in this forum which talks about it, although I'd be interested to hear Lee's experience with it. :)

theremart
09-15-2008, 09:59 PM
According to Peter Lindemann, the pendulum actually kills batteries. There is a thread in this forum which talks about it, although I'd be interested to hear Lee's experience with it. :)

This is true if you have Bedinis circuit from the video, but if you just have a simple SSG circuit, then no problem.

theremart
10-18-2008, 08:35 PM
YouTube - Self running pendulum motor. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kecCsUZebYk)

Self running pendulum motor....

Sephiroth
10-18-2008, 09:19 PM
very nice! :D

vzon17
10-20-2008, 05:25 AM
I believe Gary is on the right track.

Use the bicycle in reverse. Turn the wheel and see if he can stop the pedals.

The effect he is observing in his machine is a product of leverage. Once he uses reliable methods of measuring "power in - power out", he will see there is no over-unity here.

Inertia and gravity can be incredibly deceiving. Particularly if you add leverage to the equation.

ewebie

You need to look at your use of the term over unity. are you talking COP or efficiency? Efficiency can't be over 100 but COP can be very esily even if efficiency is way below 100 percent . So appliying the term over unity here needs to be specified as to uver unit What?

Over unity efficiency or over unity COP. over unity by itsel doesn't mean anything so your statement about overunity needs to be specified or erased.

All over unity means is "over 1", period . so if one uses the over unity term its good to finish it with a subject.

All language has two parts and people often only use one part and think it makses sense.

theremart
12-16-2008, 10:34 PM
The easy way...

Last night thought I would give a pendulum a try.... had a lot of fun doing it...

YouTube - Video 57 Pendulum fun.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjCGXnkZ7kg)

Now... want to try to work on a design of the Veljko with this to see if I can get it to go...

I am wondering what the max weight I can go with this so the electromagnet will push what I need.

rickoff
12-17-2008, 03:17 AM
I am wondering what the max weight I can go with this so the electromagnet will push what I need.

I like it Mart. :thumbsup:

Perhaps you could use a length of 2" diameter PVC pipe with a cap at the bottom end, and attach the magnet below the cap. Then start adding measured amounts of water to the pipe (a pint's a pound) to find your best weight-to-swing ratio.

What is your neo mag rated at?

Best wishes for the Holidays,

Rick :)

theremart
12-17-2008, 02:24 PM
I like it Mart. :thumbsup:

Perhaps you could use a length of 2" diameter PVC pipe with a cap at the bottom end, and attach the magnet below the cap. Then start adding measured amounts of water to the pipe (a pint's a pound) to find your best weight-to-swing ratio.

What is your neo mag rated at?

Best wishes for the Holidays,

Rick :)

NICE IDEA!

The neo that I am using ->

--

1" Diameter Rare Earth Neodymium NdFeB Magnet Sphere, Nickel-Copper-Nickel Plated

Nickel-Copper-Nickel triple layer coated for maximum protection and durability

Grade N42, 20% stronger than N35, stronger than N40, N38 grades

Magnetized through the Diameter

NdFeB Patent Licensed, ISO Certified

BrMax: 13200 gauss

--
2" Diameter Sphere, Grade N48, Ni-Cu-Ni Coated, Rare Earth Neodymium NdFeB Magnets - Applied Magnets (http://www.magnet4less.com/product_info.php?products_id=570)

ren
12-17-2008, 08:48 PM
However, it’s a whole different machine once it falls into resonance. The output becomes strong and regular, the pendulum takes very little energy to keep it swinging and you can see immediately what Milkovic is talking about.
You really need to build one and test it to get a better understanding of the principal involved. Then you can try and get it into resonance, which will teach you in no uncertain way the difference between a resonant and a non-resonant device.

Ted


Spot on Ted:thumbsup: Read the patent people....;)

Vortex
12-18-2008, 08:35 AM
Little bit of fly power to keep the pendulum swinging

This could be an efficient compressor making work extraction a bit
easier than trying to get it to do other mechanical work.

More work can be extracted from water than air.
Make it be a mechanical Ram Pump, instead of a hydraulic ram pump.
Mechanical Ram Pumps were used in the days of the steam engine .

What would this device look like? What can keep the pendulum swinging?

Just :thinking:

theremart
12-20-2008, 04:29 PM
This is my first attempt at my idea of combining a Bedini with a 2 stage Oscillator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeX_Tst2tU

Vortex
01-01-2009, 05:41 PM
This is my first attempt at my idea of combining a Bedini with a 2 stage Oscillator

YouTube - Video Veljko Milkovic' - 2 Stage Oscillator with a Bedini pendulum. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeX_Tst2tU)

Yes, this looks very interesting. :thumbsup: Don't let this go.
This leverage could be used for electrical generation could it not?
OR Mechanical up/down motion changed to water, air or oil pumping?
To Pump air you need is one of these: YouTube - how to make a pneumatic engine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D1SX17dVR0)

Here is more food for thought, I wasn't following what it was speaking
about but I'm not in the pendulum mindset as you are.
Maybe you'll understand it easier that I could.
Pendulum Thruster (http://www.freewebs.com/attatchments/pendulumthruster/pendulumthruster.htm)

Just :thinking:
Randy

dave_cahoon
01-02-2009, 01:38 AM
hi group;

There is a person who replicated this using the ratchet from a multi-speed bike.

The rocking motion on a fine servo motor will generate power regardless of the
direction. So I see one of these systems using a servo-generator not a ratchet
and another servo or a solenoid at the swinger axis.

Maybe where the up/down motion is greatest connect
a rack gear with a pinion gear on the servo....

I have had this high on the must try list.

The video most certainly shows him violating the 3rd.

I have replicated the straight wire oscillator there is no trickery in that...
Hint: Use the wire from the miss-dig utility marker flags, if you want to make a demo.

Dave

Tehnoman
01-02-2009, 01:44 AM
This is my first attempt at my idea of combining a Bedini with a 2 stage Oscillator

YouTube - Video Veljko Milkovic' - 2 Stage Oscillator with a Bedini pendulum. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeX_Tst2tU)

Nice, looks good.

Now you just have to create a coil in other side, put powerful magnet on oscillator and make it move trough the coil. Use the magic of induction. :D If you will measure flowing current, you will be able to compare total power that we put into this system and total power we can get out of it. ;)

P.S. And by the way, Newton's 3rd law has been brought to knees long ago with damn simple example - two charged particles flying in directions, which are perpendicular. After electrostatic and magnetic forces are examined, one can clearly see that in all time force is NOT equal opposite on each particle. Yet it can be shown, that in that system momentum is conserved.

theremart
01-02-2009, 02:13 AM
Yes, this looks very interesting. :thumbsup: Don't let this go.
This leverage could be used for electrical generation could it not?
OR Mechanical up/down motion changed to water, air or oil pumping?
To Pump air you need is one of these: YouTube - how to make a pneumatic engine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D1SX17dVR0)

Here is more food for thought, I wasn't following what it was speaking
about but I'm not in the pendulum mindset as you are.
Maybe you'll understand it easier that I could.
Pendulum Thruster (http://www.freewebs.com/attatchments/pendulumthruster/pendulumthruster.htm)

Just :thinking:
Randy

Thanks Randy for the encouragement,

I have been wanting to explore this idea for some time but only recently have I had the time to actually try something.

My circuit does not seem to do well on the charging battery to get it to keep charge. When my extra wire comes in I may jump up to 24V.

Thanks for the links you gave me, interesting what that young kid was doing with welding that air pump that he had...

:thumbsup:

Gauss
01-02-2009, 01:19 PM
Hi,

we live in a spherical condenser(earth-ionosphere) with a combined E and B-field that gives a lot of effects to our lives. Ie the fields give us weight, gravitation effects etc.

IF you realize this and that gravity just is an effect of the fields then a whole lot of options come to mind. Resonance is the first. If you have resonance you can input just a little energy at the peak of every oscillation and keep most of the "old" energy from the last oscillation and still output alot of energy. There will be side-effects(transmutation?) from resonance I believe, there is no "free energy" just an exchange of energies between different aether units.

Anyone has built the Milkovic oscillator in here? Progress?:beamup:

dave_cahoon
01-03-2009, 06:10 AM
GMC, Group,

Please make the straight wire spring unit, is really is as simple as he has shown.

The version using the bicycle hub ratchet, made me in-vision a bicycle where all you did to "go" was keep the *thingy swinging* and shift gears..

I/We just figured out my gout problem of the last year and a half and I'm near ready to do things again.

Some of the angle iron I bought for the beam has been used for other purpose (I live on a very small farm...)...

I'm still looking for a long rack gear to use with a large Servo Motor wired as a Generator, and the fake "OU devise toy" circuit that keeps the iron piece swinging/moving creating the toys illusion. I want to use to keep the 1st oscillator in motion.

The nrg from the servo can easly power the swinger and there is no spook, "you cant connect the out to the in, or it kills the effect" excuse !

Dave

Tehnoman
01-03-2009, 09:51 AM
Hi,

we live in a spherical condenser(earth-ionosphere) with a combined E and B-field that gives a lot of effects to our lives. Ie the fields give us weight, gravitation effects etc.

IF you realize this and that gravity just is an effect of the fields...
[..]

Well, bear in mind that on Mars, for example, is absolutely no magnetic field and yet, gravitation works as it is supposed to work - objects is falling down. I'm not saying that gravitation isn't connected to electromagnetics, but I'm saying that we don't know how! But I'm sure that is not because of ionosphere's electric field.

dave_cahoon
01-04-2009, 08:42 AM
Can anyone think of an electrical analog to the mechanical oscillator? A circuit?

Sephiroth
01-04-2009, 06:28 PM
Can anyone think of an electrical analog to the mechanical oscillator? A circuit?

An LC circuit perhaps? Simply a coil with high self inductance and a capacitor.

It will give you the electrical equivellant of a pendulum where voltage is equivellant to gravity, inductance is equivellant to mass (the weight of the "pendulum"), charge (coulombs) is equivellant to the length of the pendulum's swing, and resistance (ohms) is equivellant to wind resistance.

Vortex
01-13-2009, 04:20 AM
SHOWS effect on a pendulum !!!

Visualization of the Coriolis and centrifugal forces (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49JwbrXcPjc)

Makes you go Hmmmmm .. there's some other forces going on here
that I wasn't thinking about existing.

Rotate something attached to something else that is rotating and hmmm.

just :thinking:
Randy

Gauss
01-13-2009, 03:21 PM
@Technoman, try and read the book of Konstantin Meyl, maybe you will change your mind. The solar wind clearly indicates a B-field at Mars but mainstream science can not explain how it works. Maybe Mars has reached a new stage in its development cycle, ie all water is consumed and the crust and ionosphere may have the same charge or the crust may be a bad neutrinolyser or whatever which gives completely new results.

I strongly believe there is always duality between the E/B-field, one can not exist without the other, ie in a charged condenser people believe no B-field is present, that is wrong. The B-field of Mars may be horisontal, hence a new measuring technique is needed. Not important anyway for now.

Tehnoman
01-14-2009, 01:56 PM
At the moment I don't have enough time to read K. Meyl books, yet I believe I will do that one day, but first thing will be scalar waves.

About the duality - in some sort you are right. These two fields are connected. Yet there isn't absolute symmetry (proven in quantum physics, year 1957 if I am correct, Bearden talks about that in his book) in Electromagnetics, i.e., Magnetic field couldn't exist without Electric field, and yet - Electric field without Magnetic field would do just fine. :) As far as I am taught in university, magnetic effects comes solely from relativistic effects of moving charges.

So in case of static, charged capacitor (imagine that it is ideal case and there is no leakage currents) is only Electric field. BUT if we start to move or cap is being moved, then we can observe Magnetic field, caused by changing Electric field, relative to us.

In case of Mars - haven't been there, but it could be, that the magnetic field is caused by Mars and it's ionosphere's rotation, that would be - moving capacitor.

But still - can't see, how we can relate gravity effects with Electromagnetism. :thinking:

Inquorate
02-23-2009, 03:52 AM
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Model_Building_Guidelines_by_Dr_Peter_Lindemann.pd f

Inquorate
02-23-2009, 07:30 AM
Pictures speak louder than words..

Gravity+mill.jpg (image) (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AfoFqtq9G90/SaJNAMdhfUI/AAAAAAAAABc/HYwXVVqG5XE/s1600-h/Gravity+mill.jpg)

woopy
02-23-2009, 11:48 AM
at all

Here is a very easy to replicate Milkovic 2stage oscillator

the pendulum is activated with a RC plane servo (Hitec HS 725 BB)
the servo is activated with a servo tester . You can activate manually or automatically This works with a 4,5 volts battery but you can go up to 6 volts to get higher speed swinging

the servo is hot glued on the lever the arm of the pendulum must be articulated to get a good swing

the fulcrum is a MOT hv coil weighing about 450 gr

the 2 clamps on the lever are for the equilibrium

this is a very interesting set up to get the feeling of the brillant idea of Veljko Milkovic:notworthy:

an now looking for what we can do with this:thinking:

and how to measure the force in and out any ideas??

et vive the swing:cheers:

Laurent

Inquorate
02-23-2009, 12:46 PM
How to measure force in and out? Well, is gravity involved? Yes. Is gravity free? yes. Is there more force involved than the force required to keep the pendulum swinging? Yes. Do we pay for it? No. Is ''over unity re cost'' possible. Yeah, seems so.

Thanks for posting woopy. Here is a draft schematic for the pendulum trigger / push coil; it activates only when the pendulum is falling - because of the diodes on the trigger coil to the trigger transistor.

Did I mention the Commutator on the flywheel that causes a capacitor to fill up from the bedini wheel, then disconnect from bedini charge wheel and connect to the pendulum drive coil just before the drive coil fires?

No? That's sneaky of me.

Pendulum+drive+coil.jpg (image) (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AfoFqtq9G90/SaKaD4p_MWI/AAAAAAAAABk/uM4MX0_F2WI/s1600-h/Pendulum+drive+coil.jpg)

// closing the loop will prove output is more than input

Cheers!

theremart
02-23-2009, 07:25 PM
YouTube - Double Solenoid Pendulum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI_ooL8hcrE)

Check this out, very nice setup!!!! just look at the mass on this baby!

sucahyo
02-24-2009, 04:40 AM
Instead of timer, would utilizing mechanical switch viable for driving the pendulum? maybe using four strand of wire? two for each direction?

In the example, the left part are heavier and has shorter range. Is it possible to have the left part lighter so it can be much longer than the pendulum part at right angle, it should produce more electricity isn't ?

Inquorate
02-24-2009, 07:19 AM
It's a tradeoff between speed and torque, more of one = less of the other.

Inquorate
02-25-2009, 12:35 AM
Deep thoughts (http://inquorate-deep-thoughts.blogspot.com/)

Vortex
02-25-2009, 04:09 AM
This will make you :D
Solar Powered Electromagnetic Pendulum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgBHMjb9SsQ)

Inquorate
02-25-2009, 04:50 AM
This is interesting, stick with it; first part is quite boring.

YouTube - Tests invention Milkovic 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sj9M7qQTd8&)

Inquorate
02-26-2009, 02:06 AM
Ok, so it's only held together by electrical tape at the moment, but in my head it may just work, with enough fiddling. Everything will be adjustable when I move beyond the electrical tape stage.

Anyway, any comments, critiques or whatever are welcomed. Oh and I haven't found springs yet, but there will be springs on bolts (adjustable) with nuts secured to a crossbar either side of the lever's fulcrum. Thus I will be able to limit the lever's range of movement.

And other stuff.

YouTube - veljko oscillator idea almost complete. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsSwK4BqGvw&)

niidji
02-27-2009, 07:20 PM
Mart

In your video you posted on the 20th you were looking at creating a different switch setup. I just thought this video might be of interest to you and others as well. Very economical and functional as a magnetic or mechanical switch. Dirt cheap and easy to replace makes this real sweet.

YouTube - 002 - selfmade magnetic or mechanic switch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8-o1jm5Zo&feature=related)

niidji
02-27-2009, 08:15 PM
I went through the messages and have viewed and read all I can on Veljko Milkovic's 2-stage oscillator. It seems everyone is trying to electrify it. Is anyone else attempting anything to make it a self-runner by mechanical means only? I like to hear from you if you are.

I look at it that if you have 12 times more energy out than required to keep it oscillating, you should be able to utilize some of that to keep it running. There is an option to use the output side for this or to steal some directly from the pendulum side. In either, you must alternate the center of gravity in the to and fro motion enough to maintain the resonance of the oscillator.

Sure like to hear some thoughts on how to keep it strictly a mechanical oscillator as this is what is needed terribly by the poor around the world.

Inquorate
02-27-2009, 10:21 PM
I'm working on one now that uses mechanically moved neo magnets with a coil inbetween to momentarily increase the strength of the field and pushes the pendulum. Take another look at my video. :-)

Inquorate
03-03-2009, 11:55 PM
While my semi mechanical veljko oscillator didn't work; I couldn't even get it in synch. So it may work, I've just got more to learn. - I have just been driving a pendulum since then.

I have experimented with bedini type systems to push the pendulum, and have been using reed switches to dump the energy recovered in capacitors back into the drive battery. Due to the time it takes for pendulum to reach each apex, it appears to work. Unfortunately, my last two transistors have blown up.. And I have only had final setup running for 2 hours on a small 12v battery.. Nothing OU but very efficient.

Probably best to use reed switch to trigger master 2n3055 or Tip35c and then two or more slave transistors.

Pushing the side of the pendulum along it''s swing arc at the top of it's swing takes less energy than pushing it 'up' at the bottom of each swing.

Anyway, that's all I've got to share for now

ashtweth
03-04-2009, 03:32 AM
New one from Ron
YouTube - Shifting Pivot Pendulum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9P3Rh3Q_gI)

theremart
03-04-2009, 07:24 PM
Mart

In your video you posted on the 20th you were looking at creating a different switch setup. I just thought this video might be of interest to you and others as well. Very economical and functional as a magnetic or mechanical switch. Dirt cheap and easy to replace makes this real sweet.

YouTube - 002 - selfmade magnetic or mechanic switch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8-o1jm5Zo&feature=related)

I have made some of these, however they did not hold up... :( they ran for a while then carbon would build on on the contacts making them useless. I have sence bought 1 amp reed switches off Ebay and fought with them for about a week, i found the answer to the ones on ebay was to use a neo to adjust the reed switch this works awesome.

Inquorate
03-05-2009, 12:25 AM
I have just gotten some 1 amp reed switches too :-) and found some 1 amp self resetting fuses, which should stop the occasional sticking of reed switches I've been experiencing.

Good to know there's a couple of people working on this :-)

Ps theremart, I picked up some small neo's too, what do you mean by adjusting the reed switch with them? I was intending to use them to trigger the reed switch..

theremart
03-06-2009, 03:27 AM
I have just gotten some 1 amp reed switches too :-) and found some 1 amp self resetting fuses, which should stop the occasional sticking of reed switches I've been experiencing.

Good to know there's a couple of people working on this :-)

Ps theremart, I picked up some small neo's too, what do you mean by adjusting the reed switch with them? I was intending to use them to trigger the reed switch..

1 amp self resetting fuses!

I would be interested in the source.

What you do is take the neo or even a ceramic magnet and go on the back side of the reed switch ( reed switch near wheel then behind the reed switch ) . what you will notice is if you get the magnet in just the right place you will create a smaller gap so that when the magnets on the wheel trigger the reed switch it takes much less effort for the reed to fire, thus a faster or lower draw on the reed switch It seems to do wonders for my new Newman / Bedini hybrid motor ( plans from the Daftman).

Inquorate
03-06-2009, 04:10 AM
Apparently it's a circuit breaker, and 1.5 amp. Here's where I got them.

1.5A PCB Mount Thermal Circuit Breaker (SPST) - Jaycar Electronics (http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SF2281&CATID=23&form=CAT&SUBCATID=461)

Thanks for the magnet / reed switch tip :-)

Inquorate
03-07-2009, 07:54 AM
Just a progress update. Making these is pretty easy. The missus is in the background

My+two+loves.jpg (image) (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AfoFqtq9G90/SbImg3uu5tI/AAAAAAAAAB0/c3_E96KVU4M/s1600-h/My+two+loves.jpg)

Gravity+mill+30+percent+done.jpg (image) (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AfoFqtq9G90/SbOJp4M25oI/AAAAAAAAAB8/UxgKgDkJvO8/s1600-h/Gravity+mill+30+percent+done.jpg)

Inquorate
03-08-2009, 10:15 AM
Just a quick little peek

YouTube - gravity mill progress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrhTBv-Rm4&)

Read the comment I made on youtube,

Love and light

marxist
03-08-2009, 11:17 AM
Hi Inquorate,
maybe you already know this video/build:
YouTube - Energia Perpetua Infinita (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfdPryEaKSo)

It is by an Italian, obviously, and there is a solenoid involved, but no power supply apart from gravity.

I don't know anything else about it and just wanted to post it because the movement of your "thing"
YouTube - gravity mill progress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrhTBv-Rm4&) reminded me of it.

Good luck.

Inquorate
03-08-2009, 12:10 PM
Thankyou for the link, the machine looks impressive - I'll have to find someone who speaks italian now. :)

Vortex
03-10-2009, 05:35 AM
Hi Inquorate,
maybe you already know this video/build:
YouTube - Energia Perpetua Infinita (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfdPryEaKSo)

It is by an Italian, obviously, and there is a solenoid involved, but no power supply apart from gravity.

I don't know anything else about it and just wanted to post it because the movement of your "thing"
YouTube - gravity mill progress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYrhTBv-Rm4&) reminded me of it.

Good luck.

This is a dead-end for me in a follow up on the inventor, Gaspare, and
what is happening with this device.

Too many unknowns, someone, like Inquorate said "who speaks Italian", needs to put together some words used by the inventor in the video, to narrow down the search criteria.
Better yet, translate/narrate the entire video and publish it.

Google translation of the description of the Video.

The Title: Energia Perpetua Infinita did not translate to English?

Description:
Con questo macchinario inventato da Gaspare si ottiene un movimento infinito senza nessuna alimentazione. Il movimento si può trasformare in energia attraverso un semplice dinamo. Incredibile, si potrà trasformare il lavoro meccanico in energia elettrica, sotto forma di corrente continua perchè questo macchinario non smette mai di muoversi! Translation:
With this machine invented by Gaspare you get an infinite movement without any food. The movement can be transformed into energy through a simple dynamo. Incredible, you can transform mechanical work into electrical energy in the form of direct current, because this machine never stops moving!

Inquorate
03-11-2009, 01:53 PM
If you haven't yet, please read the thread I made here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3926-need-help-circuit-delay-reed-switch-triggering-transistor.html

One more step complete :thumbsup:

And it only took three full days of experiments with circuits. :embarrassed:

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 02:41 PM
Your 1-2-3-4 drawing on Page 1 => http://www.energeticforum.com/662-post1.html is interesting, and the page an interesting read. A question: when the left end of the device impacts the anvil below it, doesn't that represent energy lost out of the system into the anvil?

I'm not versed in this device or its Pros and Cons. This is simply an off-the-cuff question. It seems that striking the anvil is Work done against the anvil.

Woodrow Riley, CloudSeeder

Inquorate
03-11-2009, 03:16 PM
Yes, it is work done on the anvil. And if we clamped down the lever onto the arm of one veljko oscillator, so no work can be done, while letting an identical veljko oscillator do work on an identical anvil, we would be required to push both pendulum's with an equal amount of energy to keep both pendulums swinging at an identical rate.

In other words, once we are oscillating the pendulum, any work done by the lever arm on the anvil - doesn't cost anything!

The centrifugal force on the swinging pendulum makes the pendulum appear to 'weigh' more at the bottom of it's swing. This lifts the lever / hammer... At the apex of swing, the pendulum 'weighs' less, and the hammer / lever arm descends.

Gravity supplies most of the energy, we supply a small amount of energy to keep the pendulum swinging.

:cheers:

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 04:34 PM
Are you saying make a double device like mirrored?

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 04:39 PM
The story goes on Johann Bessler that he had assistants turning a small crank, adding a small force to bump his device along. So you're saying your device bumps another device along similarly.

I'm not opposed to using bumping techniques because the bumping mechanism can also serve as a system timer to keep them regulated.

And you have still gotten more Out than you have put In.

You're Cheating. My Gravity Wheel also cheats.

Cheating is a valid way of Winning.

There's an Old Saying that says "Good things come in pairs". Sometimes
we should listen to sayings passed down to us from the Ancients.

Inquorate
03-11-2009, 05:06 PM
@ cloud - to clarify just in case, I was saying that the pendulum swings independently of the lever / arm / hammer.

But if the pendulum is swinging, it will cause oscillations in the hammer for no extra cost from the pendulum.

Tests have been done that measure up to 12 times more work out than we must put in..

I am in the process of seeing how efficiently we can convert electrical input into the mechanical oscillator and how efficiently we can convert the mechanical work into electrical output..

We see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 05:22 PM
Many of my inventions seem to contradict set rules but they do not and
I suspect yours doesn't either. Essentially, all we have done is design
the MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT OF A STEP-UP TRANSFORMER.

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 05:42 PM
Same thing Johann Bessler did in 1712... but he painted himself into a damning corner by calling it perpetual motion, so he felt compelled to hide what he had done so he wouldn't lose face. He eventually got caught in his hiding the truth when his housekeeper ratted him out in Court years later, you see. Bessler had done nothing wrong I'm aware of other than fixing a working device that had a "trick" to it... a minor or "secondary" outside force.

Perpetual Motion is impossible, so he put himself into an impossible situation he couldn't win.

darkwizard
03-11-2009, 05:54 PM
Cloud of course, you are totally right,

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 05:57 PM
Thanks DarkWizard. I've been telling that message for 5 years. I know it's right, because one really Primary example of a Mechanical Equivalent of a Step Up transformer is the Jet Turbine.

If someone argues my point they also have to say jet turbines don't work.

Or even whew, a hand pump on a farm.

Power magnification is not "energy created from nothing".

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 06:35 PM
When you make a circular Step Up transformer that feeds back into itself in circles, that's where the full Efficiency Gravy comes in. With a circle yes, there are negatives, but if they are across from each other their negatives cancel each other out.

At a 180 degree opposite in the circle ~one heading one way the other the other way~ cancelled out as if they do not exist. So in my opinion the best expression of these principles will always be in a circle (or a circular design).

Electronic circuits are a very close second... but they are in a different class than pure Mechanical anyway.

Apples versus Oranges, both should work.

Jetijs
03-11-2009, 08:26 PM
Today I thought about how loop back the output energy to the input energy. Electrical way is too complicated. So what I came up with is the following. Why could we not just use an air compressor on the up/down side. We would just need to convert the up/down movement into circular motion and that is easily done using something similar than those one cylinder lawnmover engines. This then would turn the air compressor and compress air into a compression tank. This compressed air then could be used to push the pendelum at apropriate times. With modern day pneumatic instruments this can be done easily. What do you think?

On the other hand, why do we even need the circular movement? We can only use the piston part of the compressor and use the up/down movement directly. This is also preferable because the up and down movements are not even and regular and this would not be good for getting a rotation movement.

Inquorate
03-11-2009, 08:58 PM
You could try it with a bicycle pump, even a foot pump, and glue (really well) a second valve to an inner tube. The hard part would be getting a piston to push the pendulum - how does it switch on to fill the piston with air and how does the piston open in order to let the pendulum fall back - Maybe look up steam engine pistons, maybe buy one of those hobby / toy steam engines and sacrifice it's piston? Or one would need precision machining tools. And then it begs the question, what useful work can it do once - hopefully - it is running itself? But, interesting thoughts.

Jetijs
03-11-2009, 09:02 PM
I see no problems using a piston assembly from a 12v car tire compressor. We would need a few swings to build up pressure in the pressure tank and then just use that stored pressure to operate a pneumatic linear actuator at the correct timing to push the pendulum. If you did not understand the idea, I can make a drawing :)

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 09:31 PM
That's right. In fact my own Gravity Wheel could also use a balloon~soft diaphragm pump behind the smack plate in place of the spring, so the air pump from the ball hit could be channeled up to give extra to turning the wheel. But I can see where it would work with yours also.

The advantage of the wheel is the weight in the rim that helps carry its motion past the flat spots. That's what you would have to do, place something in motion that its inertia would carry through the transition spots.

Inquorate
03-11-2009, 09:50 PM
@ jetjis, I understand. I think. Someone else - of all our nameless guests, some may not. So in that sense a pic would probably be good.

You sound like you've given it quite a lot of thought. If you have a go at it, I won't feel quite so alone :embarrassed:

@ cloudseeder - I intend to use falling of hammer / lever to push on a bike pedal. I'm looking for a kid's bike for now, but one with gears would be great.

The chain will turn a wheel with magnets on it that pass a bunch of coils (how many depends on how much torque I can get).

The wheel will be heavy so it will carry inertia for the period of time that the hammer / lever is pulling the pedal back up..

That should solve the irregular beat. I think.

CloudSeeder
03-11-2009, 10:27 PM
Bicycle bearings or roller skates are extremely low friction but tires and spokes catch the air like sails on a ship. If you find the correct ratio it should be a success for you. The magnets going into nearness and out of nearness (proximity) is the trick to get them correctly positioned close as possible. It doesn't have to be exact perfect timing because the spinning wheel should carry them through. Godspeed.

CloudSeeder
03-12-2009, 09:28 PM
I would draw exception to this thread saying "Violates the 3rd law of Motion". If any of us finds a better improved Law it isn't really a violation => it is a superior law above the level of existing law. I had that 3 laws of Thermodynamics thrown into my face for 5 years, and when I looked up and read those 3 laws I found out they only apply to "HEAT-PRODUCING ENGINES".

My engines have such a high efficiency of design they did not generate excess heat... because excess heat is a product of inefficient and otherwise patched together engine design. So my engines -the system as a whole- did NOT violate the 3 laws after all. They were either #1 outside or #2 above or #3 worked around those 3 laws. My car engine (not on Energetics) generates heat but then it uses that heat to pre-heat water toward being steam again: a workaround that goes above the "thermo" laws by virtue of intelligent design (using every scrap of the heat).

So having the thread named VIOLATION is an admission you have, we have, violated something...which I understand in a way yes we have but we violate on the HIGH SIDE, THE GOOD SIDE, but to people reading it the wrong way (NEGATIVE~UGH) it makes us LOOK LIKE WE'RE ADMITTING GUILT. One should never ever admit guilt even when you're guilty, as in a traffic accident, you just don't do it.

You can't start a race and automatically give the other man
a head start on ya. He wants to win so bad make him earn it.

Let the other man prove the guilt. Let the other man find it. No one turns themself in, puts handcuffs on his own argument, or steps into Sheriff Andy Taylor's jail cell and locks himself up like he's "Old Otis" the wino in Mayberry RFD. Make the other man prove you're wrong not quote laws on you and stomp ya down with a 300 year old pre-computer-software library book written by Daedalus.

Laying down voluntarily across railroad tracks for your opponent
is a poor way to win. You hafta grab him by his collar
and do a reversal. It works in wrestling.

ABCStore
03-12-2009, 09:39 PM
CloudSeeder,

would it be possible to see at least a YouTube video of any of your prototypes?

Thanks,
ABC

CloudSeeder
03-12-2009, 09:49 PM
No, ABC. I haven't done that so far. However, I do have one specifically planned to be the first => my design for a healthy computer room that helps people lose weight and stay healthy while being sedentary.

I put people's good health above my engines.

Since I don't have any help with any of my projects this has
been on the drawing board for some time now...

Although in truth the healthful computer room is also an engine.

CloudSeeder
03-13-2009, 03:19 PM
I like YouTube well enough for many of their offerings but I haven't placed it on high priority for a reason => for inventions it is a homogenous mass where they all meld together almost. In the end, most of the inventors who show their work come off looking like Fred McMurray in Son of Flubber flying around in an old jalopy... something to be laughed at rolling on the floor for people's amusement & raucous laughter. If I was interested in being laughed at I would wear a clown outfit to the Mall.

I watch for other ways to present serious ideas, like coming here on Energetics.
It isn't that I'm "above" YouTube. I just don't relish being pulled lower.
Trying to "prove" something works with videos is barely above drawings.
People don't believe in something til it's in their hands, or a Gravity Wheel
is sitting in their closet feeding electricity up to the circuit box and they no
longer pay a monthly electricity bill with monies needed to pay off a Home.

I will you grant you this that it can be distressing being the tortoise watching all the hares running past... but being on disability since 1989 I've watched a lot more than rabbits go ahead of me. I've had a lot of men fight me hard to hold my ideas back but I take the long range view, that a really GOOD IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME is going to brush men like that out of the way in due time... no matter how many tricks they pull out, such as setting up a video website that drowns all new inventions meshed together in a Laugh-In YouTube format. People aren't stupid. I don't have to hawk GRAVITY at an online snake oil convention like a smarmy County Fair barker. People know that all energies can be harnessed to do Work, so people already knew in their heart a Gravity Wheel was coming, sooner or later.

It's a lot sooner now.
How to Turn Gravity On and Off =>
Post #42 http://www.energeticforum.com/48665-post42.html

Aaron
03-13-2009, 03:40 PM
Please keep this thread ON TOPIC:
Veljko Milkovic' - 2 Stage Oscillator Violates 3rd Law of Motion

CloudSeeder
03-13-2009, 03:50 PM
Apologies Aaron. I replied to someone asked me a question. I'm gone.

shlodo
03-14-2009, 09:05 AM
Today I thought about how loop back the output energy to the input energy. Electrical way is too complicated. So what I came up with is the following. Why could we not just use an air compressor on the up/down side. We would just need to convert the up/down movement into circular motion and that is easily done using something similar than those one cylinder lawnmover engines. This then would turn the air compressor and compress air into a compression tank. This compressed air then could be used to push the pendelum at apropriate times. With modern day pneumatic instruments this can be done easily. What do you think?

On the other hand, why do we even need the circular movement? We can only use the piston part of the compressor and use the up/down movement directly. This is also preferable because the up and down movements are not even and regular and this would not be good for getting a rotation movement.


I like the compressor idea but with a bikepump as inquoret said.
The pump could simply fill the bladder of a tire and a solenoid valve could open the high pressure from the tire into the pendulum at the correct time

u could use a simple reed switch to turn on the solenoid valve.
THis would be a simple a cheap way to test the concept without turning a wheel and a compressor. U could use pickup coils along the path of the pendulum (with magnets) to charge a cap and power the solenoid valve switch which would switch on for less than a second once every swing.
The solenoid valve uses very little energy. Less than using a coil to pulse the pendulum along.

or even those camping pumps underneath the hammer

-shlodo

Inquorate
03-17-2009, 05:38 AM
YouTube - crazy purple flash staccato (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrOqbdzQdMs&)

YouTube - pendulum push coil tuned up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1MKaTYCNLw&)

These videos are relevant to many discussions I've had on different threads. Hope no-one minds me cross posting :-)

Inquorate
03-17-2009, 08:32 AM
NOT under the fulcrum of the lever. :rofl:

I'm making so many 'learning opportunities' it's become funny.

Put the electromagnet on the lever, pendulum side of course. Otherwise, nary the twain shall meet.

Also, you'll have more time to push the pendulum (smaller arc). When it's got it's weight on it, it falls away too quickly to get in a good push.

My time delayed on, time shut off circuit is still necessary. Which is good, because I'd be pulling my hair out otherwise.

Rinky dinky dink.

sucahyo
03-18-2009, 01:39 AM
I play around with simulation software just now, here is what I build:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9676/velko.gif (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=velko.gif)

It eventually stop.

shlodo
03-18-2009, 01:45 AM
@ Suhcayo

nice work, wats the name of that simulation software??
cheers

Inquorate
03-18-2009, 03:06 AM
@ Sucahyo - can you post a link to that software? Looks awesome and may help ppl work out dimensions better, and how to get oscillations in resonance.

Thanks!

sucahyo
03-18-2009, 05:00 AM
The name is working model, it has gravity, wind and electrostatic, no magnetic though.
Working Model 2D - Home (http://www.design-simulation.com/wm2d/index.php)

We can do much even with the demo version, I capture using irfanview :). We need to purchase if we want to save our work though.

other software I found during searching:
Infolytica » Overview of MagNet: Design & Analysis Software for Low Frequency Electromagnetic Devices (http://www.infolytica.com/en/products/magnet/)
http://www.interactivephysics.com/products/ip.html
Visualize magnetic fields: free electromagnetic finite element modelling, analysis, simulation software. Animations. (http://www.vizimag.com/)
http://www.quickfield.com/

ashtweth
03-18-2009, 06:45 AM
Torrent - Working Model 2D + Keygen + Crack - [HUSSEY]:: BitTorrentMonster (http://www.btmon.com/Applications/Windows/Working_Model_2D_Keygen_Crack_-_HUSSEY.torrent.html)

sucahyo
03-18-2009, 08:31 AM
To complement working model for creating the object in precision, some say qcad is the best:
SourceForge.net: QCad binary for Windows: Files (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=240145)

Vortex
04-08-2009, 07:42 AM
Not a "standard" model, but it's an Oscillator, the Video (http://s369.photobucket.com/albums/oo137/UrPhBucket01/Ideas/?action=view&current=Oscillator.flv). of the Working Model 2D design.

I couldn't figure out how to add energy to the pendulum swing so I
used springs. An up down movement of the entire pendulum at the CORRECT
time would add energy to the pendulum swing.
It's another option for energy input.
Rectangle 32 is the Hammer rectangle, not the pendulum.
There is friction added to the pendulum pivot point, but not the pivot point on the Arm of the Hammer.
The recorder does not seem to record live graphs, the graphs are from the
previous running of the device.

The design was trying to increase swing distance on the Hammer.
Moving the pivot point on the arm closer to the hammer,
greatly increase the up/down swing.
In this design the balance between hammer, pivot point and pendulum does not seem to be as touchy as a standard 2 Stage Oscillator.

don3332
04-09-2009, 09:34 AM
I see no problems using a piston assembly from a 12v car tire compressor. We would need a few swings to build up pressure in the pressure tank and then just use that stored pressure to operate a pneumatic linear actuator at the correct timing to push the pendulum. If you did not understand the idea, I can make a drawing :)

When I saw the mention of compressing air, I thought "this is what I keep coming back to..."
But, has anyone mentioned putting a reaction engine on the pendulum to give it the little push it needs? A sensor that senses when the pendulum is at it's "peak" looses a jet of air or maybe better, water. From what I've read from the fellow (on Milkovik's site) that is trying to build a mechanical link from the output end back to the pendulum, so far has said TIMING is the most difficult trick. Regardless of where the pendulum is at, a sensor (mercury switch or a weighted spring with a microswitch in a tube?) would know when it's at it's upper limit, open an electric valve, just a tiny burst like a push of a pinky. It might even be able to start the whole thing. Also would react to anything (a really excessive load) slowing the pendulum. the pendulum itself would be the commutator.

nilrehob
04-19-2009, 10:40 AM
I've just opened up a hard-disc-drive to use the rotor in one of my motor-setups when it struck me that maybe the pickup-arm, with coil and magnets and all, could be used in a setup of this kind in some way? :thinking:
It's just a thought I wanted to share, although I'm not going to pursue it myself as I'm focusing on motors and coils right now.

Inquorate
04-19-2009, 11:05 AM
@ don3332 - re delay circuit to push pendulum after it's stopped going up..

I solved that problem, two 555 timers and two relays. Could be used to turn anything on, not just a coil.

It's all here;

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3926-need-help-circuit-delay-reed-switch-triggering-transistor.html

Love and light

Peter Lindemann
04-19-2009, 05:15 PM
Torrent - Working Model 2D + Keygen + Crack - [HUSSEY]:: BitTorrentMonster (http://www.btmon.com/Applications/Windows/Working_Model_2D_Keygen_Crack_-_HUSSEY.torrent.html)

Ash, and EVERYBODY,

Working Model 2D is a $2,500 program. Downloading it for free from the TORRENT sites is STEALING!!! There is NO WAY to further the benefits of CIVILIZATION when these supposed benefits derive from the theft of Intellectual Property, or the theft of any other type of Property.

I also encourage EVERYBODY to BOYCOTT all torrent sites, for the same reason. If FREE ENERGY is to help make a better future, it CANNOT be developed from a foundation of THEFT. This is not the future I am interested in promoting. If we cannot build a better future based on HONESTY and INTEGRITY, then when we get there, it won't actually be BETTER then the mess we have now!

Peter

don3332
04-20-2009, 04:41 PM
@ don3332 - re delay circuit to push pendulum after it's stopped going up..

I solved that problem, two 555 timers and two relays. Could be used to turn anything on, not just a coil.

It's all here;

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3926-need-help-circuit-delay-reed-switch-triggering-transistor.html

Love and light

Inquorate:
Thanks so much for this info! Lots of links to look up there. I even just received my order for a bunch of 555 timers, just to have on hand.
Thanks also for taking the time to post a schematic based on a video. For me, with dial-up, one picture can be worth a thousand minutes of loading...

don3332
04-20-2009, 05:28 PM
Ash, and EVERYBODY,

Working Model 2D is a $2,500 program. Downloading it for free from the TORRENT sites is STEALING!!! There is NO WAY to further the benefits of CIVILIZATION when these supposed benefits derive from the theft of Intellectual Property, or the theft of any other type of Property.

I also encourage EVERYBODY to BOYCOTT all torrent sites, for the same reason. If FREE ENERGY is to help make a better future, it CANNOT be developed from a foundation of THEFT. This is not the future I am interested in promoting. If we cannot build a better future based on HONESTY and INTEGRITY, then when we get there, it won't actually be BETTER then the mess we have now!

Peter

Dr. Lindeman,
I agree very much with you on this assessment. (based on MY experiences:( )
"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight." (What goes around, comes around.)

I first read your work in Borderland Sciences Research way back in '89 and now thanks to your posting(s) on the Gravity wheel and references to Veljko Milkovic, I find myself dragging out and dusting off my boxes of magnets, springs, plexiglass, etc. :thanks: :notworthy:
I've even purchased Rex Research's CD's of their site which I've avoided since I could download for free. WHAT A BARGAIN (only $12) that was! He's even got a really nice set of videos of Milkovic's work on there.:fingerdance:

FuzzyTomCat
04-20-2009, 10:15 PM
Ash, and EVERYBODY,

Working Model 2D is a $2,500 program. Downloading it for free from the TORRENT sites is STEALING!!! There is NO WAY to further the benefits of CIVILIZATION when these supposed benefits derive from the theft of Intellectual Property, or the theft of any other type of Property.

I also encourage EVERYBODY to BOYCOTT all torrent sites, for the same reason. If FREE ENERGY is to help make a better future, it CANNOT be developed from a foundation of THEFT. This is not the future I am interested in promoting. If we cannot build a better future based on HONESTY and INTEGRITY, then when we get there, it won't actually be BETTER then the mess we have now!

Peter

I'm in total agreement with Dr. Lindemann on this one, copyright infridegment is a serious offence and should never be tolerated, any game or software program that requires a keygen or crack to install it is illegal and the laws are in the authors favor when it comes to theft.

Torrents does have its place, but not for any illegal usage.

Pirate Bay defendants get hammered! The Official Verdict - Guilty (http://convivea.com/forums/index.php?topic=1442.msg13892#msg13892)

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/)

Glen
:)

ashtweth
04-21-2009, 12:51 AM
I guess its a shame that researches like us don't have 2,500 to throw around, if ever there could be some sort of amnesty for the usage of this, i think the Fee Energy engineers using it to HELP humanity then deleting it would be the only one, But like Peter says we should avoid it.

Ash

wrtner
06-04-2009, 03:45 PM
Ash, and EVERYBODY,

Working Model 2D is a $2,500 program. Downloading it for free from the TORRENT sites is STEALING!!!
Peter
I wonder if our colleagues in the Linux community have done something
along these lines:
SourceForge.net: Find and Build Open Source Software (http://sourceforge.net)
We might have to throw our Windows into the "Toilet of Despair"
but that might well be a good idea anyway. (or use dual booting)
Paul-R

wrtner
06-05-2009, 03:06 PM
It might be worth trying the mech eng department (or Architecture) of your local university to see if there is any arrangement whereby we might use their software, if they have it. Diplomacy needed since many have stopped thinking, and are bound to regard much or even all of what we do to be nuts.
Paul-R

gene gene
06-08-2009, 09:23 PM
Hi all,

I built a 2 stage pendulum a couple years ago when I first found Milkovic info. It was rather crude in construction, made with a sledge hammer another sledge head for 2nd stage. I think the parts are still in the garage if anyone might be interested in some pics. It did not work the greatest, I think most likely because it was just clamped down on a metal desk that jumped around alot when in use. You could drive a 8d nail with one finger input but it took quite a few pushes. I believe it could have drove another nail above the sledge with no more input. The kids were not to impressed and Cathy didn't like the noise so I took it apart.

I have a pendulum idea I would like to run by you all. I hope it's not to far off topic, if it is I will delete.

http://akuevw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p42eXB2uJC0xPSqbrfU5ndbgyCDRAy6FiNkL3owXOIngTfrQ nondBr0jjfjBoSEkL108F80M7yKxEEbNInYw-0g/mag%20arch%203.bmp

Maybe some of the electronic guys here can do windings for coils and electro magnets, for I have no knowledge of such.

Keep up the good work,
Gene

wrtner
06-10-2009, 11:12 AM
Hi all,


I have a pendulum idea I would like to run by you all. I hope it's not to far off topic, if it is I will delete.
Gene
Yout idea is intriguing, and should have its own thread.
Paul.

Inquorate
06-10-2009, 11:42 AM
Not truly a veljko oscillator because it's really only a lever, and does not harness centrifugal force to add to the weight of a pendulum..

However, whilst it should have it's own thread, I would not delete it, as a hybrid vertical veljko oscillator with a pendulum that takes advantage of the 'weightless' aspect of the lower pendulum's swing to accelerate the 'fall' of the top weight would IMHO be a worthy project.

There could potentially be a gain there.

Thankyou for sharing your idea here, it has given me food for thought, and possibly - god forbid - another project

However, it's already half built in my living room, thanks to my gravity mill and electromagnetic powered veljko oscillator forays...

I knew that delayed push pendulum circuit would come in handy someday.

So, again, Thankyou.

Inquorate
06-10-2009, 12:12 PM
Pendulum on the top of a vertical veljko oscillator; you'd have to get the period of the pendulum's swing and the period of the lever's swing in resonance by adjusting the weight and the weight's placement along the pendulum and lever...

Dag nammit, can't sleep now.

:thinking:

But again; the problem of veljko oscillators; how to harness the excess inertial energy produced?

gene gene
06-10-2009, 01:29 PM
Hi Inquorate,

Thanks for looking at my pendulum idea. I am glad that you you made the connection with the Veljko oscillator for it was when thinking about a way to drive the short high speed pendulum of the Milkovic device that this idea came to me. I'm sorry for not making that clear in my post.

I'm not sure how to start a new thread but I will attempt if you think this idea has enough potential, perhaps if more people see this someone could help me with coils & electro magnets. Or if someone was willing to work on the electrical end of this I could build the mechanical part of it and ship it to them to be fitted with the electronics. There is a fishing rod manufacturer just up the road from me and I can easily acquire rod blanks of different strengths.

Thanks, :thumbsup:
Gene

ashtweth
06-11-2009, 04:53 AM
>how to harness the excess inertial energy produced?

PRODUCE REAL WORK, WATER PUMP AND MANY OTHERS:thumbsup: :)

Inquorate
11-14-2009, 08:58 AM
YouTube - ...it works!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcHDWQrnZVk&)

Looks good so far.

Michelinho
05-12-2010, 09:16 PM
Hi all,

Check this from Matos de Matos:
Pendulum Hydro Pump (http://pendulumhydropump.blogspot.com/)

Take care,

Michel

Cloxxki
05-12-2010, 10:02 PM
Hi all,

Check this from Matos de Matos:
Pendulum Hydro Pump (http://pendulumhydropump.blogspot.com/)

Take care,

Michel

That sliding pivot looks just like a virtual higher placed pivot? I fail to see the significance.

ashtweth
11-11-2010, 01:33 AM
Guys check it out, looks like an educational toy proving OU is on the way from Veljko, what a great idea, physical proof assessable to any one

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Veljko_Milkovic_The_Revision_of_Conservation_of_En ergy_Law_or_the_Apocalips.pdf

Matthew Jones
11-11-2010, 01:57 AM
@Ash
I was wondering what the heck it was. Do you have a contact with him?

I have been working hard on my motorized version. YouTube - Bouncer2_2.MPG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkBamhlK8w&feature=related). It alot further than that now.
This guy (http://www.youtube.com/user/MagnaMoRo) did a PHUN simulation of what was described, it not up on his channel anymore, but according to the numbers he plugged in it was 3-4 time more out than in. And he didn't have a simple motor.

Veljko Milkovic is the real deal.

Matt

Sputins
11-11-2010, 02:19 AM
I believe the Veljko Milkovic device is more or less a mechanical analoge of the Tesla Magnifying Transformer, where the pendulum on the device is related to the "extra coil" which creates a virtual ground.

No doubt it is the real deal.

Matthew Jones
11-11-2010, 02:57 AM
Dude sent me link I am not sure it will work though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQ7H0UKF94&feature=email

Cheers
Matt

Aaron
11-11-2010, 05:12 AM
looks like an educational toy proving OU is on the way from Veljko, what a great idea, physical proof assessable to any one

Ash,

I believe a bouncing ball and even Newton's Cradle demonstrates over 1.0
cop "overunity".

It requires x joules to lift something to a certain height. When calculating
all the joules required to lift those things to each of their heights over and
over and of course each time with a diminishing height, all those joules
added up are MORE than the required joules to lift it to begin with. Over
1.0 cop.

That shows there is no such thing as conservation of energy. Each time
there is work, there is dissipation and a "regauging" or re-establishment
of a new potential difference (height) which becomes less and less on
each cycle. And each time it goes to a height, even though it diminishes
each time, there is a NEW potential difference established that taps
gravity for free a source for gravitational input that will produce work when
the objects encounter any resistance.

Matthew Jones
11-11-2010, 05:26 AM
Ahhh...
The bouncing ball.

Cheers
Matt

Aaron
11-11-2010, 07:09 AM
Hey Matt,

LOL, yeah!

Your machine is the first of its particular variation I think. It is like an
asymmetrical pendulum. That is a fun concept to experiment
with. You are absolutely getting free gravitational input and your coil /
rotor part of the machine should only have to put in the difference of the
loss per rotation just like a pendulum but of course you have it running
at high speed compared to a gravity only pendulum.

Would be interesting to see generator coils around the pendulum part -
not necessarily all the way around but on the way down after top dead
center to right before bottom dead center.

If I did that experiment, I'd try to see the absolute slowest I could get it
to run and see what could be recovered in generator coils.

I am NOT recommending you try this because I'm not recommending you
waste your time on my ideas - I'm just thinking out loud. You're definitely
an out of the box thinker and your one way pendulum machine may have some great possibilities.

I had run my bicycle wheel motor as a pendulum with magnets only on
one section of the wheel, etc... but you are taking advantage of the
bouncing ball effect in my perspective with the springs that dissipate the
downward gravitational potential as they're being compressed and after
loss you get a rebound to whatever height with the magnetic assist, you
will always have free downward push and when adding it up, is more than
you put in. The only way you can lose excess energy more than needed
in your setup is in the tuning of what the coil section of your machine is
doing.

Of course there is bearing friction losses, etc... but I'm talking about the
deliberate input.

For example, if a ball is dropped from a meter and bonces to 83% of the
height or to 83 cm on the first bounce, it only takes 17% input from
there on out perpetually to always get the ball to bounce to a meter.
That is well above 1.0 cop and is very common sense that it is over 1.0
cop.

17% input to get the full 100% height. It doesn't get any simpler than
that and it applies to 5 bounces or a billion bounces - 17% gets you 100%, which is cop of 5.88.

In your setup (thinking out loud for fun - not recommending anything),
if you ran it as slow as possible to see the bare minimum input your
coil system needs to get the weight over the top over and over, that
would be just enough to make up for the loss that the weight needs to
make up for the loss to get over the top again.

You could move to more efficient springs, perhaps a rubber ball or
something else would give you more rebound for the buck so you are at
the highest efficiency possible.

Then just tune the electrical circuit to do the same for less power.

In my opinion, if you recover ANYTHING in generator coils, you
automatically beat the system because the math will say that you require
x amount of joules to get that weight to a height (mass moving around
a pivot point is different that a dead lift) and if you have ANYTHING
recovered or "left over" it didn't really require that much to lift it after
all because you get some back. The "system" doesn't account for that
inconvenient fact. You already get this but again, just thinking out loud.

http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/10757/result_h.gif

Matthew Jones
11-11-2010, 01:23 PM
The motor, in fact, is recovering. In a 24 hour run with no mechanical load on the triangle, the recovery is about 90%. This is based on loose math but true enough to say it. If I could raise the RPMS of the motor this would probably increase.

I am currently working on a larger model. The motor will have a constant torque.
There will also be 2 pendulums swinging side by side. The shaft of each will be connected with a spring that will not unwind with rotational force but will bend horizontally. The 2 mechanisms will bounce at 180 degrees out.

This will hopefully lead to a 50% duty cycle rhythm on the output. The output will be a cam, or levered shaft (Like a old hand drill) with each side outputting to the shaft. The shaft also connected to a flywheel and geared output.

The hope is to have a low rpm high torque rotating output to use to spin up a generator, pump water or whatever.

IT has changed my direction in research for the time being, because it is truly capturing and using environmental energy with a great gain to the input.

There are still alot of subtleties to its design, that don't become apparent until you change it.

Matt

Aaron
11-11-2010, 05:14 PM
Looking forward to vids on your new builds!

I think I have a way to translate the Milkovic oscillator rocking motion
into a rotating flywheel, which should not even be noticeable to the
oscillator's own resonant rhythm.

I want to place gen coils around the flywheel and store it up in a cap,
which then at a certain level will discharge into a coil that will kick the
swinging pendulum at the end of the oscillator.

It should work for a few cycles but probably not enough to make it self
run but is just something I've been wanting to try for a while. Won't be
doing much until after the conference.

Matthew Jones
11-11-2010, 05:40 PM
Won't be doing much until after the conference.

I hear ya. I can't even think about building anything at this point. Like a kid at Christmas with a big box under the tree.

I'll make sure to get up with ya over the weekend.

Cheers
Matt

kcarring
01-27-2011, 12:04 PM
I have been in total amazement by this device for months. After seeing a whole lot of great ideas and adaptations, I am curious about a few things...

1. When a child is pushed on a swing, though (without argument) it is easier to keep that child going, (as an adult standing back) than the initial or a single top-to-top oscillation would be... consider this. If you, the adult had to keep that child moving from up at the pivot point (say a gear) that'd be real hard. On the other hand if you were bottom dead center under the swing and had to push up that'd be real hard too! ..so...

Given those situations, consider how easy it is for the child (if they are old enough to know how...) to use THEIR position of mechanical advantage, ON the pendelum... their legs...

I believe it is the least amount of work needed.

I believe to get mechanical wings on the pendelum bob to move, as a human leg would, is the answer.

But it's complete thought and not a lot of theory.

I'm also curious what people think about the potential to use a dynamo on the hammering end, would it look like a compression dynamo (flashlight) or would it be pneumatic... tesla turbine?

i agree, this is big.

bugler
01-27-2011, 01:01 PM
It¡s been plenty of years since Veljko Milkovic came up with his oscillator but nothing seems to come out of it.

If it really produced 12 times mecahnical energy than the input it should be extremely easy to make self-running and get some energy out of it.

Aaron
01-27-2011, 05:31 PM
I have been in total amazement by this device for months. After seeing a whole lot of great ideas and adaptations, I am curious about a few things...

1. When a child is pushed on a swing, though (without argument) it is easier to keep that child going, (as an adult standing back) than the initial or a single top-to-top oscillation would be... consider this. If you, the adult had to keep that child moving from up at the pivot point (say a gear) that'd be real hard. On the other hand if you were bottom dead center under the swing and had to push up that'd be real hard too! ..so...

Given those situations, consider how easy it is for the child (if they are old enough to know how...) to use THEIR position of mechanical advantage, ON the pendelum... their legs...

I believe it is the least amount of work needed.

I believe to get mechanical wings on the pendelum bob to move, as a human leg would, is the answer.

But it's complete thought and not a lot of theory.

I'm also curious what people think about the potential to use a dynamo on the hammering end, would it look like a compression dynamo (flashlight) or would it be pneumatic... tesla turbine?

i agree, this is big.

A kid getting pushed on a swing is demonstrating over 1.0 cop. You only
have to make up the loss. The rest is provided from free gravitational
potential input into the system since it is open.

A superball dropped from a meter is about cop 7.0+. At least a 40 gram
ball that rebounds to 83% of the height average on each bounce is about
7.0 cop. Add up the work in joules necessary to lift that weight to each
height of the bounce and and it is over 1.0 cop by the 3rd bounce
compared to what was needed to lift it to the original 1 meter to begin
with.

To answer bugler - there are many applications this HAS been applied to
mostly for water pumps so THAT is what has come of it. Please research
before posting such messages.

That means people are pumping water and getting more work done than
they have to put into it.

If you have any understanding that the output is DISCONNECTED from
the output - making it self running is IRRELEVANT. You get more work than
what you pay for and you continue to leave the output disconnected
from the input so as not to close the loop.

theremart
01-27-2011, 05:36 PM
It¡s been plenty of years since Veljko Milkovic came up with his oscillator but nothing seems to come out of it.

If it really produced 12 times mecahnical energy than the input it should be extremely easy to make self-running and get some energy out of it.


I have built the device, and what I see is it is a lever. It can move more weight on the other side because of the mechanical advantage.

There is a difference between mechanical advantage, and output energy. The closest for demonstrating this to me is his video where he lights several flash lights from the push of 1 flash light on the device. It seems to hold the potential for more out, But how does one get the "push" from the other side of the lever back to the front and applied at the correct time seems to be where the magic lies. I was thinking either air or hydrolic pressure could be stored on the receiving side and applied back to the input.

bugler
01-27-2011, 05:45 PM
To answer bugler - there are many applications this HAS been applied to
mostly for water pumps so THAT is what has come of it. Please research
before posting such messages.

That means people are pumping water and getting more work done than
they have to put into it.

If you have any understanding that the output is DISCONNECTED from
the output - making it self running is IRRELEVANT. You get more work than
what you pay for and you continue to leave the output disconnected
from the input so as not to close the loop.Hi Aaron.

WHat is the latest development of the oscillator? Do you have a video or website.

IMO making it self-running should be an obvious goal.

kcarring
01-27-2011, 08:33 PM
If you have any understanding that the output is DISCONNECTED from
the output - making it self running is IRRELEVANT. You get more work than
what you pay for and you continue to leave the output disconnected
from the input so as not to close the loop.

If I understand the system correctly, the child in the swing is disconnected from the system. In my thought, the point was, the child is at a point of advantage to operate and sustain that system end. If the pendulum bob was mechanical in such a way to do this, it seems to me, you have an advantage point - where that power comes from (to activate the bob leg) makes no difference really. I understand the disconnection of systems, if you force the hammer to stop, the pendulum still swings. My poiint was, if the goal is to operate the pendulum Bob, why exert any more effort than necessary. Thanks

Matthew Jones
01-27-2011, 08:35 PM
Hi Aaron.
What is the latest development of the oscillator? Do you have a video or website.
IMO making it self-running should be an obvious goal.

You guys don't get it. IT not that easy to take the output and run it into the input. Electric Air Hydrolic all require alot of timing issues to keep the pendulum running.
Remember you are stealing Inertia from the pendulum every time it oscillates to the output. That makes the timing and the exact input a variable.

The output will be depleted by the time you return to the front end.

Everybody always looks at it and says the same thing. It can self run, but it can't. Not that machine. It becomes very clear when you build one that works well all the problems associated with making it self run.

The effect can be used in other styles of machines. That collision between inertia, kinetic energy, and gravity can be found in alot places if you start looking.
One example is a fly wheel that is out of balance. Hook it to 2 tracks top and bottom to restrict the vibrations and and add few springs. Now you have machine that vibrates rapidly in 2 direction. And you will be hard pressed to stop it from going to side to side. And you better believe you can extract that energy. How is up to you.

Thats the point of his machine. To show the collision at slow speeds. But that very effect can be invoked in alot of different things. Don't center on the machine itself center on the effect it gives, and whole new world opens up.

Matt

kcarring
01-27-2011, 09:17 PM
A kid getting pushed on a swing is demonstrating over 1.0 cop. You only have to make up the loss. The rest is provided from free gravitational potential input into the system since it is open... ...

If you have any understanding that the output is DISCONNECTED from
the output - making it self running is IRRELEVANT. You get more work than
what you pay for and you continue to leave the output disconnected
from the input so as not to close the loop.

I totally agree with this, and my thought is that in the case of a swing - if you compare the child's needed effort to maintain the bob swing, to the effort required by an assistant fixated "pushing" - i think you'd find that the Bob itself - if modified to simulate a center of gravity and shape change at the exact right time in the swing - will be at the greatest point of advantage to get that work done with the least energy in. Doing this work on a larger Bob from the top pivot point is the least advantageous point, as shown in the demo of the research machine on youtube.com. Influencing the swing with electromagnetic forces might be conservative but may possibly not scale up well when the Bob gets very massive. Where the power comes to automate the swing is irrelevant, but HOW MUCH power it consumes doing so, is certainly altogether relevant when considering the overall COP of the system. At the end of the day if you scale this up, your not going to have Manuel standing atop a 50 ft ladder giving a 20 tonne Bob a "push".

my 2c on the unity/overunity/COP...

The word overunity is not a very scientific word, because the scholars that be have attached it to perpetual motion. It has no real definition on it's own, other than what is in the encyclopedias; that which equates to perpetual motion.

The word "unity", on the other hand: "a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation"

The first cycle of this machine is grossly inneficient and "underunity" if you will. The subsequent cycles have COP>1, which really, is the only real care anyway, if the intent is to get it going, and keep it going. The energy savings come over time.

IMHO people get way too hell bent on "perpetual motion" and "overunity" and "free energy". These are pretty much meaningless terms because they've been defined by two communities, those that believe they exist, and those that don't - (which happen to be the authors of the reference books) and the definitions do not coincide with one another. The day perpetual motion is truly achieved, and understood, and possibly even mathematically worked out, it won't be overunity anymore, will it? The argument is stupid.
This world operates on workable concepts, and COP>1 is one those concepts.
Any heat pump or sail boat is a fine example.

Here's something. Why, as experimenters (and correct me if I missed finding it somewhere) do we not have this:
COS

Coefficient of Scale
(or, at very least "Consideration" of scale)

You have a device that has COP>1.
It has a cost, an environmental impact, a "real estate footprint" or SIZE.
And, it has the potential to perform well, for a size, or not.

These are considerations. If we have a 40,000 dollar constructed device that occupies 1/4 acre lot and uses many environmentally dangerous factors and industries to produce...
all to get 4000 watts of energy, at COP=2 : I'm sorry, we're still not there yet. It's COS is low.

Out of every device I have seen, this device appears to have a lot of potential, both in that is has been studied for its COP>1, and there seems an opportunity for "COS".
The Bessler Wheel, or P. Lindemanns Bessler's wheel, does not, to me, appear to have similar scalar value. How big is that sucker going to have to be to produce kilowatts of energy? Way too often people get too excited over discovering a means to COP>1, yet forget to look at the cost and size of the device, scaled up. (low COS). If there was a "COS" then one of it's requirements surely will be a high COP. Often much higher than COP=2, if it does not obtaint he desired results in a compact affordable design. Consider an 11 amp Mitstubuishi Variable Speed Compresser Heat Pump at COP=3. At the size of a large PC tower, nowadays. Running at COP>1 at temperatures as low as -21 (and colder!). Consider a hydro electric dam. Very high COP. Medium "COS". A shovel, when compared to digging in the dirt by hand has a very high COP and COS! I see similarities in this device. During points of require "momentary force" - it could be amazing. If sheer momentary force alone could inadvertently create acceleration (think of a sailboat accelerating while changing its pitch angle to the wind, requiring the momentary strength of leverage provided by the cleats and ropes) then this force could be achieved by having the final output hammer of this machine deliver the force - acting against a seesaw lever - at a very low power input cost. That only augmenting, as Aaron mentioned, it's already implemented usage as a pump mechanism. The Milkovic Pendulum effect is a very important study, I think.

Inquorate
01-27-2011, 10:05 PM
YouTube - kinetic energy multiplier theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en-GB&v=zIOBgaZXvUw&nomobile=1)

kcarring
01-27-2011, 10:18 PM
YouTube - kinetic energy multiplier theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&gl=US&warned=True&client=mv-google&hl=en-GB&v=zIOBgaZXvUw&nomobile=1)

Awesome, I agree the place to do it is on the Bob itself, with leverage. It's a natural match tot he rest of what is going on! Very cool, thanks for that.

Aaron
01-28-2011, 01:37 AM
If you have any understanding that the output is DISCONNECTED from
the output - making it self running is IRRELEVANT. You get more work than
what you pay for and you continue to leave the output disconnected
from the input so as not to close the loop.

EDIT: output is DISCONNECTED from the INPUT

Basically, they're not in lock-step

Aaron
01-28-2011, 01:59 AM
will be at the greatest point of advantage to get that work done with the least energy in.

The word overunity is not a very scientific word

Right. Like the bouncing ball example. It takes x joules to lift a 40 gram
superball to a meter. 100% of what we put in is 100% GONE and DISSIPATED
once it reaches a meter. What we get out of what we put in IS the lift
in and of itself.

When it falls, it is all 100% gravitational potential free input from nature
after that. 17% is dissipated (if 83% bounce up on the first bounce) in
the form of heat, etc... losses and ball compression and 83% of a potential
difference is re-established so NEW potential comes in. None is ever left
over from what was input on each cycle - each cycle is regenerated new.

So, there is no such thing as conservation of energy.

Just full dissipation input, then a new potential difference is established
where completely NEW potential comes in. Nothing is transformed from
one form to another.

Dipole/potential difference is established, potential comes in can do
work, dissipation, then re-establishment of new potential difference.

Anyway, at 83cm, all we need to input is 17cm worth of work from then
on to lift it from 83cm to a meter and let go and for 17cm of work we
continuously get the ball to 1 meter.

Since we don't include free environmental input in COP, only what we have
to invest, 100cm of height for the cost of 17cm from then on is a cop of
5.88 per bounce if we always just make up for the loss to get it to a meter.

If we don't make up for loss and just lift it to a meter and let go, it will
be over 7.0+. EDIT: If you don't touch it after the initial lift and calculate
all the joules in work required to lift it to each height on each bounce
until it comes to a stop.

Anyway, overunity is an oxymoron since it implies that we will get more
than everything there, which completely makes no sense but COP does
fit the ticket to accurately describe what we actually pay for compared
to what work we actually get to benefit from.

Gdez
01-29-2011, 02:28 PM
@ kcarring,
Inquorate and I got on the subject of the swing a little while back, and I have played around with the idea. I made this movie to explain what happens on a swing, in laymens terms. I was trying to figure out how to mimick the way you would swing your legs to go higher. For all that would like a more scientific explanation, I suggest this pdf

http://staff.kfupm.edu.sa/phys/tahmed/How%20to%20pump%20a%20swing.pdf

simulation vid YouTube - gdez1000's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/gdez1000)

In the simulation I posted on youtube, I have a motor set at about 20 rpm( it works at other rpms also) I also have a brake set on the motor. In the beginning of the clip, I turn the brake off and on and let the arm advance a little bit. This gets the swing started. To make this the simulation simple I control(release and engage) the brake manually. The green arrow at about 7:00 seems to be the best spot to release the brake. Until you acheive full rotation it seems that the best spot to engage the brake is somewhere between 4:00 and 1:00. Once full rotation is acheived it seems that the ideal place to re-engage the brake is at about 3:00.(green arrow #2) Remember I am timing this by eye, I think someone with better simulations could probably tell the exact point for optimum preformance, for "the braking". At about 1:30 in the video, you can see that I can let it rotate 2 to 3 times without changing anything. All it takes is a small move of the arm to keep it going. All that I am doing is changing the path of the center of gravity. This is what you do when you are on a swing.

Matt Jones says above "Thats the point of his machine. To show the collision at slow speeds. But that very effect can be invoked in alot of different things. Don't center on the machine itself center on the effect it gives, and whole new world opens up."

This simulation on my video is another example of the two stage oscillation process. Milkovic says that this multple oscillation process even shows up in nature.

It would be interesting to apply a similar device to the simulation I posted onto the feltenberger style TSMO, it would then have triple oscillations.

Rhead100 is very close to nailing down the exact input he needs to keep his pendulum going, so keep an eye on his project. I also can't wait to see Matt Jones "boucer". I think his next one is going to open some eyes.

Anyway, I have my own ideas about how to "close the loop", using an escapement by mechanical means only, and hopefully i'll be back to building within the next week or two.

Hope someone finds this video useful,
Gdez

Michael John Nunnerley
01-29-2011, 06:55 PM
@ all

First of all it is needed to understand how an over cop situation happens, and yes it does, but a certain event or events have to take place.

To get an over cop you always have to have at least one change of state. This is like voltage to current or current to voltage, mechanical to electrical or electrical to mechanical, magnetic field to electrical or electrical to magnetic, chemical element to chemical compound or in reverse.

A heat pump is electrical to mechanical to chemical change of state and the extra energy has come from the ambient air and chemical change of state.

An over cop electrical device is one that changes very low current to very high voltage by using both the low input and the high output to drive a third state all at the same time and in doing so collect free energy that is in the ambient be it magnetic flux lines in the earth or another term, from the lattice which is energy which is sitting there to be absorbed if one knows how, and yes there are certain people that know how.

The point is that you ALWAYS HAVE TO CHANGE THE STATE OF YOUR ENERGY even if you started with mechanical and want to end up with mechanical, in between you will have to change the state.

I hope I have explained myself, I just don't want people to be trying to make an only mechanical machine to do a cop of 1, it will not happen.

Mike:cool:

spiralout
01-29-2011, 08:12 PM
YouTube - living energy machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a49d5cJOGQ0&feature=related)

Gdez
01-29-2011, 08:47 PM
@Spiral out,
I only wish I had the equipment and plans to build that, it would be absolutley perfect for what I want to do. I first saw it on panacea's pdf, and I can't beleive that no one has tried to put it on a tsmo. If I could put one of those on my tsmo, with a 200 lb pendulum, I think the power would be incredible. If anybody feels generous and wants to send me one , I'll hook it up immediantly.(haa, ha) Till then spiral, why don't you help me figure out how to build maybe something similar. It can't be that hard, and I'm game if we could do it cheap.
We're only limited by our imagination,
Gdez:thumbsup:

Matthew Jones
01-29-2011, 09:18 PM
@Spiral out,
I only wish I had the equipment and plans to build that, it would be absolutley perfect for what I want to do. I first saw it on panacea's pdf, and I can't beleive that no one has tried to put it on a tsmo. If I could put one of those on my tsmo, with a 200 lb pendulum, I think the power would be incredible. If anybody feels generous and wants to send me one , I'll hook it up immediantly.(haa, ha) Till then spiral, why don't you help me figure out how to build maybe something similar. It can't be that hard, and I'm game if we could do it cheap.
We're only limited by our imagination,
Gdez:thumbsup:

I have been looking at one for my bouncer but the best price I got on it so far was $1800. That alot of money right now. But if the bouncer works out,which it is, I'll probably invest in it.
The only problem is if you buy that guys plans for the "Living machine" you cannot disclose them publicly. So we worked out some plans for it (No digital physics model yet) so we can hand them out when we open source.
There is alot of info out on the theory an working operation of the thing.

Its neat stuff when you get to looking at it.

The Living machine is one way the 2 stage oscillator can be enhanced. That and riding swing for an adult you could light your house up.

Matt

kcarring
01-29-2011, 10:40 PM
Matt,

What are your thoughts on the difference between complete rotation as in the bouncer vs. the back and forth pendulum effect of the original design concept. I wonder about the energy required by the final "breakover" - that is from 9pm to 12 pm if illustrated on a clock.

Thanks

@Aaron Thanks for your input on energy loops. It took a while for me to understand it, the free energy community has been blacklisted for it's association with overunity, and yet overunity has ambuigity in itself, it's not even really a word, which gets back to another post of your's on "language". A fascinating thing on it's own. I remember myself, being totally baffled and making posts years ago like "You need to close the loop to prove your work". It's so easy to fall into that stupid realm of thought. The best way I try to explain it to myself, now, is: Did they need to pump the water back to reservoir and then divert the river, in order to prove the hydro electric dam was running COP>1, or would that be pointless, and eventually settle, and stop... do to various energy losses in the process? And even if they could through highly efficient pumps and piping and impossible means of 100% efficiency, what would be left over to "tap" out? (in terms of electricity). Obviously, a lot less than if they hadn't of bothered. Which is why they didn't. Not to mention the cost, time, and futility/stupidity of the thought in the first place. Yet, once built, it obviously produces far more power than required to operate, and thus is way over COP=1.

Matthew Jones
01-29-2011, 10:49 PM
Matt,

What are your thoughts on the difference between complete rotation as in the bouncer vs. the back and forth pendulum effect of the original design concept. I wonder about the energy required by the final "breakover" - that is from 9pm to 12 pm if illustrated on a clock.
Thanks


If you store energy in the spring on the way down some of that of that energy is returned from the natural action of the spring.
Its all just balancing act. If you don't take to much you make whole lot more in the long run.

Part of the problem using Milkovic's system with a motor it looses its abilty to have cop greater than 1. Because the 2 stage oscillation is gone. 1 rotation turns into 1 oscilation.
The bouncer (as proposed in the concept video) not only gets 2 oscillations from one rotation but the it make it easier to do by making both pendulums balance out into 1 flywheel type weight.

I am not going to talk anymore about it though. We have a few things to finish then people will see.

Matt

kcarring
01-29-2011, 10:58 PM
Thanks Matt. It all helps, for sure. Great work you're doing there.

Gdez
01-30-2011, 11:54 AM
@kcarring,

"I'm also curious what people think about the potential to use a dynamo on the hammering end, would it look like a compression dynamo (flashlight) or would it be pneumatic... tesla turbine?"

I thought about something like matts' setup, but instead of springs, using an airshock with checkvalves and put the air output to drive a tesla turbine attached to the flywheel. You might have to get it going first though, depending on how much weight is on the flywheel. I've read that the tesla turbines don't have a lot of torque and without a heavy inital blast of pressure, the whole thing might not want to start. On my setup I thought that putting to little water pumps where the springs are would be cool, but I can't play with water in the garage right now, it's too cold out there.

Anyway, I liked your ideas about COS, it's a problem for alot of people that just don't have the room to do alot of the scaled up stuff. Plus the money thing.

@matt
I was wondering where I can find some of the stuff you read about the living energy machine. Also when you finish the bouncer project, can you send the team of engineers you must be hiding in your garage over to my place? The pay won't be good, but they'll defintely be fed well.
Can't wait to see the new bouncer.

@all
I don't really care if the TSMO is cop>1 or not, it sure is fun to build these things!

kcarring
01-30-2011, 12:18 PM
[QUOTE=Gdez;128438]@kcarring,

"I'm also curious what people think about the potential to use a dynamo on the hammering end, would it look like a compression dynamo (flashlight) or would it be pneumatic... tesla turbine?"

Honestly, i don't know. My suspicion is that this system is best for a pump. A deep well pump. So many other small version applications could be done though too. Like stamp/cutting for instance - other forms of fabricating.

It has really opened my mind. As far as power, goes the AOGFG (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6414-alpha-omega-galaxy-freefall-generator-aogfg.html) (or here (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Alpha_Omega_Galaxy_Freefall_Generator_%2 8AOGFG%29)) and the Mikhail Dmitriev Gravity Wheel (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Mikhail_Dmitriev_Gravity_Wheel) may offer similar but easier routes to COP>1 power generation. I'd love to hear Aaron's thoughts on those.

Being a wind and solar guy, gravity assistance seems to be a natural winner. It's a force we know for sure is there, many old farm implements are leverage or gravity assist.

I love to tinker with electronics, but it is just that: tinkering. I'm more mechanical - I am currently interested most in stretching watts so to speak. Get them initially from solar and wind, somehow mechanically amplify that with gravity assist, and use Bedini tech and Tesla switching to augment it all. The other stuff: Peter Lindemann / Lockridge etc... it's interesting to me, but at the end of the day if it's a real foggy road, I wait till the weather clears up. Leave the dream machine design to the dream team so to speak, I'm all about getting the watts rollin' and back to gardening and fishin - playing with my kid :)

This gravity stuff has be very intrigued though I must say. It has been the clear winner for 2010. Big numbers for sure.

Matthew Jones
01-30-2011, 12:25 PM
@matt
I was wondering where I can find some of the stuff you read about the living energy machine. Also when you finish the bouncer project, can you send the team of engineers you must be hiding in your garage over to my place? The pay won't be good, but they'll defintely be fed well.
Can't wait to see the new bouncer.

You can find the link to the web page for the living machine on the youtube description. Technik im Einklang mit der Natur; - home; (http://www.naturtechnik.de)
From there you can find the name of the guy who's work its based on. Felix Würth, and do search. Lots of things come up including some patents.
Let me add this...The living machine that is shown will need to incorporate an output shaft and gear set to be usable.
The team of engineers would be and my neighbor/best friend. I'm not going anywhere.:thumbsup:

Matt

Gdez
01-30-2011, 12:36 PM
i don't know about the aogfg, but I like the gravity wheel by Demetriev. Seems like it got a lot of bad press, but to me it looks like with some heavier weights the thing would have to produce some decent torque. Seems like it would be pretty easy to build too. I'll admit that I really like the bedini stuff, but, like you things get a little foggy for me. I try to focus on things that Not only I can build, but that other people can do too, and I like the KISS mentality. I like gravity ideas too, It's free and there's plenty of it to go around. Don't worry, soon, when fuel prices scyrocket up to $5.00+ a gallon, they'll be a lot more people jumping on the gravity bandwagon. :peaceflag:

Gdez
01-30-2011, 12:42 PM
Thanks matt

kcarring
01-30-2011, 12:53 PM
I have a lot of faith in Matt's path. Earlier this evening a friend of mine invited me over to watch Energy From The Vacuum #14, which is must view documentary, and about 1:15 into it, Walter Rosenthal discusses the pitfalls of measuring "overunity" devices. It was a bit of a wake up call for me. He talks about the inherent energy savings by pulsing a DC circuit in the megahertz range compared to running lights (as a measure of output) on AC current. He explains how street lamps could be operated at 33% of their current draw, simply by pulsing and how, often, coil pulsed circuits are not overunity at all, rather they are energy saver circuits and the output measuring mechanisms are tainted by inaccurate consideration of what actually happens during pulsing/frequency change. He is an X-engineer / Rocket Scientist for Lockheed Martin, and has about 30,000 into test equipment. He was pretty closely connected to Floyd Sweet's work.

All in all, it's substantially easier to get "fooled" by circuitry, than by mechanical COP gains. If you've ever questioned the gains possible by gravity, I invite you to do this:

In state fairs they have this ride, it's amazing, I forget the name, but.. basically a small motor (and yes it's pretty darn small, I was shocked!) winds up an enormous bungee to the top of two arms, stretching it by use of mechanical gear advantage. once stretched, the thing hurls a huge steel cage full of people in the air about 140'. Once they peak, of course, they then fall... but they do about 5 bounces back up... the first being almost as high as their initial height, maybe 100 ft.

If you stand by the thing and watch it all, you seen realize, when two systems are disconnected creating a cause and effect - gravity power is unbelievably high in COP.

Gdez
01-30-2011, 01:06 PM
I like what you are saying about the ride thing. So if you shoot up several hundred pounds up real high, say 100', then catch it at the top. Put it into gear and let it do work on the way down, do you think that the power that you get from the gears would be more then it took to slingshot it up. Interesting thought. I'm sure I'm getting ready to have some people telling me "No Way", but like you said "it was a suprisingly small motor and with several hundred pounds driving a generator as it comes down it seems you could harvest a lot of power.

Aaron
01-30-2011, 07:59 PM
Did they need to pump the water back to reservoir and then divert the river, in order to prove the hydro electric dam was running COP>1

Good point, refrigerators and other heat pumps systems are over 1.0 cop
and this is common knowledge in the industry and they don't have to be
self running in order to be accepted as being over 1.0 cop.

Aaron
01-30-2011, 08:06 PM
It has really opened my mind. As far as power, goes the AOGFG (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6414-alpha-omega-galaxy-freefall-generator-aogfg.html) (or here (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Alpha_Omega_Galaxy_Freefall_Generator_%2 8AOGFG%29)) and the Mikhail Dmitriev Gravity Wheel (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Mikhail_Dmitriev_Gravity_Wheel) may offer similar but easier routes to COP>1 power generation. I'd love to hear Aaron's thoughts on those.

I have no idea. There are so many of these things posted but nobody has
ever duplicated any of them to my knowledge.

This however seems to be real: YouTube - G-Force Rotational machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZItT-XqqrHE)
I was in touch with an individual involved with this a couple years ago
but have no details to share.

Aaron
01-30-2011, 08:16 PM
That living machine is pretty awesome. It could accomplish what I was
thinking if it can work. What I mean is that by the vid, there is no shaft
to tap that strong rotational energy is there? And the outer circumference
of the 3 discs are constantly rotating so there can't be a fixed ring or
anything. I didn't look at it that close but that is what it appears to be.

Anyway, in concept, that machine is a one way freewheeling bicycle wheel
on steroids - but with no fixed ring or shaft or is there?

One idea I had with the Veljko machine is to tap the motion from the shaft
that the large hammer pivots on. It obviously doesn't rotate back and forth
very much but my idea was to put a monster gear or pulley there - would
only have to be a pie piece at the bottom.

That large pulley or gear would be connected to a bicycle's small one
way freewheeling gear so that that small rocking motion of the hammer
pivot shaft could get a wheel going faster such as the concept you see
in the living energy machine but it won't be going as strong as that of
course.

Magnets would charge coils around it's circumference magneto style to
charge some caps. When caps get to x voltage, they discharge to a coil
that is mounted so that when it is pulsed it repels or attracts a magnet
on the pendulum.

I haven't tested this but was just an idea I wanted to share so I have no
idea how effective it would be.

That is just another bucket dipper system without closing the loop.
River running by, taking bits of the potential bit by bit in the form of
electrical power then dumping that back to the mechanical system,
apparently satisfying Mike's parameter as well, I think.

This way, there could possibly be a self runner but the loop remains
completely open.

The bicycle wheel turning one direction would continue to spin in one
direction even when the shaft cocks back in the opposite direction also
leaving the input to the bicycle wheel detached from the rotational work
the wheel is doing.

kcarring
01-30-2011, 08:42 PM
Interesting idea. I have imagined permanent magnet alternators that are only "a piece of pie if you will". Probably already done. If they cut the magnetic fields in one direction, then reverse their direction, and cut the fields in the opposite direction, they should then provide a low frequency 1 phase AC, no? If the strength of that setup (magnet wise) is basically enormous, even if the frequency is low... you are still inducing large current. Given a large Milkovic setup, one would think you'd have real good "strength" in the force available to you. So in this example you wouldn't possible be able to physically by hand, operate the alternator it would impose large magnetic "lock down", but the machine could. Because of the two stage oscillation concept - that force required, does not impose of the energy source whatsoever, I figure the pendulum would continue to sway until such a time it could overcome the forced required. At the end of each alternator "stroke" you might also employ spring to help the process "return". Hope that makes some sort of sense.

* I see this at the end of the hammer. The hammer pounds down on the sharp end of a piece of pie. Further up the slice of pie is a pivot point. So, on a down stroke, the hammerhead forces the fat end of the piece of pie "up" cutting the field lines. As the hammer head lifts away from the sharp end of the pie. Simultaneously a spring (heavy spring) forces the pie shaped alternator BACK through the induction cyle. From there, the process repeat. i see it as low Voltage, Low Frequency, high amperage current. Perfect for Hydrogen production. electrolysis requires only 2v at high amps

Michael John Nunnerley
01-31-2011, 12:04 AM
That living machine is pretty awesome. It could accomplish what I was
thinking if it can work. What I mean is that by the vid, there is no shaft
to tap that strong rotational energy is there? And the outer circumference
of the 3 discs are constantly rotating so there can't be a fixed ring or
anything. I didn't look at it that close but that is what it appears to be.

Anyway, in concept, that machine is a one way freewheeling bicycle wheel
on steroids - but with no fixed ring or shaft or is there?

One idea I had with the Veljko machine is to tap the motion from the shaft
that the large hammer pivots on. It obviously doesn't rotate back and forth
very much but my idea was to put a monster gear or pulley there - would
only have to be a pie piece at the bottom.

That large pulley or gear would be connected to a bicycle's small one
way freewheeling gear so that that small rocking motion of the hammer
pivot shaft could get a wheel going faster such as the concept you see
in the living energy machine but it won't be going as strong as that of
course.

Magnets would charge coils around it's circumference magneto style to
charge some caps. When caps get to x voltage, they discharge to a coil
that is mounted so that when it is pulsed it repels or attracts a magnet
on the pendulum.

I haven't tested this but was just an idea I wanted to share so I have no
idea how effective it would be.

That is just another bucket dipper system without closing the loop.
River running by, taking bits of the potential bit by bit in the form of
electrical power then dumping that back to the mechanical system,
apparently satisfying Mike's parameter as well, I think.

This way, there could possibly be a self runner but the loop remains
completely open.

The bicycle wheel turning one direction would continue to spin in one
direction even when the shaft cocks back in the opposite direction also
leaving the input to the bicycle wheel detached from the rotational work
the wheel is doing.

Aaron

Yes you are right it will fit into my parameter, anything that changes the type of energy to another and then feed it back.

There has just been a post by Dr, Stiffler which is interesting using AV plugs.
The magnetic flux lines of the earth CAN be used to extract extra energy depending on the orientation and one thing I have found is the frequency makes a difference in the system that I use, this does make a self runner and I am still looking into why as I do not have all the answers yet.

Mike

Gdez
01-31-2011, 12:11 AM
@Aaron,
"One idea I had with the Veljko machine is to tap the motion from the shaft
that the large hammer pivots on. It obviously doesn't rotate back and forth
very much but my idea was to put a monster gear or pulley there - would
only have to be a pie piece at the bottom."

This seems to be how the gap water pump guys have their TSMO setup. Similar idea , anyway. Just getting your secondary oscillation a different way or adding a third oscillation, depending on the setup your trying.

Aaron
01-31-2011, 01:36 AM
Here's some goofy old drawings from last year sometime showing the idea.
One has a generator on the shaft that might give low frequency ac.

Anyway, shows the point:

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/veljko_milkovic/pendulum1.jpg

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/veljko_milkovic/pendulum2.jpg

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/veljko_milkovic/pendulum3.jpg

FRC
01-31-2011, 01:37 AM
Aaron

Yes you are right it will fit into my parameter, anything that changes the type of energy to another and then feed it back.

There has just been a post by Dr, Stiffler which is interesting using AV plugs.
The magnetic flux lines of the earth CAN be used to extract extra energy depending on the orientation and one thing I have found is the frequency makes a difference in the system that I use, this does make a self runner and I am still looking into why as I do not have all the answers yet.

Mike

I had just read the Dr, Stiffler post before I read yours. I am curious about:
..." in the system that I use " ... What is the system that you use ? Or is it
a secret ?

FRC

kcarring
01-31-2011, 07:52 AM
Here's some goofy old drawings from last year sometime showing the idea.
One has a generator on the shaft that might give low frequency ac.

In the middle diagram, lower depiction you have a larger gear driving another smaller gear that is placed above. That one seems to make sense to me in the sense that the upper gear will have a higher degree of rotation per cycle, do you see it as a PMA and that it'd be multiple coils but 1 phase with the flux lines cut one way, then a reversal takes place, polarity switch in the opposite? Or do you see it as 3 phase, etc.

Aaron
01-31-2011, 09:18 AM
In the middle diagram, lower depiction you have a larger gear driving another smaller gear that is placed above. That one seems to make sense to me in the sense that the upper gear will have a higher degree of rotation per cycle, do you see it as a PMA and that it'd be multiple coils but 1 phase with the flux lines cut one way, then a reversal takes place, polarity switch in the opposite? Or do you see it as 3 phase, etc.

Their all big gears on the shaft driving a small gear except for the first
top imagine on the 2nd image.

The small gear could be below the shaft too depending but in any case,
yes - large gear on shaft with small shaft movement will be able to
translate to more rotation on a small gear on a wheel for example.

The generator part is whatever works good. Simple concept
is bicycle wheel for example would have magnets around it that would
induce current into coils - simple test is to have a single coil under the
wheel's magnets like an SG or something. I don't know what I'd try first
as this is just a general idea.

It could switch polarity or not - just whatever makes the cap charge
enough to give a coil a sufficient bang to attract or repel a magnet on
the pendulum to get it to the highest point it can go.

I know there IS an optimum way to translate that rotational motion to
the highest cap charge possible with the least work - just takes
experimentation but the collective knowledge can shorten down the
guesswork.

Matthew Jones
01-31-2011, 12:36 PM
Aaron.
To extract power from the living machine you need a pipe shaft extending from one of the outer gear retainer. He marks them as Planeten-Trager (Planetary carrier) in the begining of the video. The shaft would need to be a pipe with a bearing inside to carry the center driving shaft. Then you could pull the power from this like a flywheel.
Also if you look up Felix Würth or go here (http://www.evert.de/eft377.htm), he had a simple design that only used 2 outer gears.

I believe the living machine to be alot more stable though.

And in using it you would not want to hook it to the center of 2 stage oscillator. You would to hook it to the output end. The gear assembly and the center point will short out the effect of the pendulum on the other end.
Any resistance at the pivot has a negative outcome.

Cheers
Matt

kcarring
01-31-2011, 08:28 PM
I know there IS an optimum way to translate that rotational motion to
the highest cap charge possible with the least work - just takes
experimentation but the collective knowledge can shorten down the
guesswork.

I agree and I'm just throwing around ideas in my head too. I see one of the distinct values in this whole assemble as sheer "force" value in that 2nd stage. Given that, my thoughts are that this available gain in force, due to mass of the bulkhead I shall call it (The big heavy portion being offset by stage 1) should be utilized to "do work at it's maximum" so to speak.

If I understand it correctly, no amount of resistance to that work being accomplished will affect the momentum of stage 1.

And if that statement is correct, firstly that's amazing, secondly, I'm thinking we need not worry whether stage 1 "can handle it" (it's aftereffect of producing one cycle) rather we are only concerned whether the available disruption, the force that which "rocks the boat" so to speak, is strong enough to accomplish one "stroke" on the bulkhead.

So, having said that, I see this thing as a huge radial piston, basically. It's stroke is very short, and it's cycle is not smooth like a sinusoidal wave for example.

Given that, I somehow perceive this as still able to accomplish many things, but of interest at the moment (in my drawing) is to break the magnetic field created by a magnet against a coil. If the magnet was really quite large, and the coil of heavy guage copper, I still see the ability break and cut those flux lines, and my limited electrical knowledge makes me assume the result with be high current, low frequency if accomplished.

In your design I see a second transmission using gears, which i can think can work, and my point today is that I also envision another scenario wherein a second transmission of sorts takes place as well, but on the absolute front end, where I feel the most leverage is available, possibly the highest power point.

I may have this all wrong, it's just a picture I have in my mind of how to break an incredible magnetic lock not otherwise "doable" by human force, repetitively with min. energy in to sustain it. And I somehow imagine the current created useful in brute force electrolysis given it's 2v large current low frequency parameters.

I imagine quite the neodymium magnet assembly. No thought into shapes, curve, ideal strokes, magnet size vs. coil size, nor positioning... just a completely crude look at how I see a very strange rotor/stator setup for this.

I apologize for the horrendous drawing. If people think this has merit I'll start playing in 3d, but first I need some criticism.

I also need to understand what creates the voltage in such a system. I understand the current aspects, the frequencies, but I don't understand how voltage is derived other than a guess that is is a function of frequency and current?! I don't know.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8787/milkogen.jpg (http://img651.imageshack.us/i/milkogen.jpg/)

kcarring
01-31-2011, 08:47 PM
The biggest thing I do not like about my drawing is that, once again I see the same weakness, in that you've taken a beautiful maximized device and reduced it to an output that still reduces force; in that my lever is all wrong. The hammer is on the short end of the lever, and I see that as a problem.

In the Feltenberger Pendulum, you have a nice translation of rotary amplified force translated to linear force. I must say I like that concept, and if instead of pumping with that force, you accomplished a linear shift of plates positioned over one another, one side with magnets, the other side coils, you may accomplish a great deal of current.

Interesting as well, is the idea of trying to do this all with a true 3 stage oscillation in that if the final rotor/stator assemby was "deadstalled" - neither the 2nd nor the 1st stages would be stopped. If that could be done, I think we'd really have something in the true nature and beauty of this whole concept, start to finish.

kcarring
01-31-2011, 09:21 PM
A variant of my visual could be a shared radial pivot point allowing alignment of stator to rotor along the natural path of the bulkheads travel with multiple coils and magnets experiencing the same 1 phase AC (down, and up as provided by return spring). As for the two rotor/stator plates not attracting (decreasing their distance) from one another due to the attractive forces, the plates (housing, 2 sides) could extend past the place at which "the work is being done" and have slots, following the radius. In those slots would be retaining bolts, physically larger in diameter while central to the plates thus stopping a "sandwiching" effect attempted by attractive forces.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7559/milkogen2.jpg (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/milkogen2.jpg/)

kcarring
01-31-2011, 09:39 PM
Another quick note:

My experience with concrete tells me that this device if very well drafted can be constructed mainly by wood form and concrete. This will offer a large mass, affordably. If created with rebar inside the concrete and a large proportion of plasticizer the mix with offer mass and strength with resilience to shock as to not fracture the bulkhead over time on impact cycles.

Aaron
02-08-2011, 09:52 AM
Got a msg sent to me on this:
OS:Bedini-Powered Milkovic Two-Stage Oscillator - PESWiki (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bedini-Powered_Milkovic_Two-Stage_Oscillator)

Pretty cool - Sterling says it may be the first with Bedini, but there have
actually been several.

I thought of putting a SG coil under the pendulum but Mart actually posted
a vid with that didn't he?

There is multiple work in the system done from the coil input.

Why not just calculate the mechanical work compared to what the
SG is drawing?

The hammer is lifting up not perfectly up but in a slight rotation but
in such a small distance, a straight dead lift calculation for the weight of
the hammer to that distance should give a good ballpark. Then add
pendulum work per hammer lift and compare to SG draw.

Is it an impossible thing to calculate to get a general idea of the
comparison?

FRC
02-08-2011, 10:35 AM
Might be able to make a self runner out of it. That's a good way to get torque
out of an SSG.

FRC

FRC
02-09-2011, 03:10 AM
That video made me see things I had not seen before. Instead of the Bedini
magnet/coil, maybe opposing magnets, like in the OMEGA motor.

FRC

Gdez
02-15-2011, 02:12 PM
Here is are some interesting videos, similar to matt Jones bouncer concept using Milkovics eccentric flywheel principle.

YouTube - purelyprimitives's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/purelyprimitives)

mechanical resonance pt 1 & 2

theremart
02-15-2011, 06:02 PM
Got a msg sent to me on this:
OS:Bedini-Powered Milkovic Two-Stage Oscillator - PESWiki (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bedini-Powered_Milkovic_Two-Stage_Oscillator)

Pretty cool - Sterling says it may be the first with Bedini, but there have
actually been several.

I thought of putting a SG coil under the pendulum but Mart actually posted
a vid with that didn't he?

There is multiple work in the system done from the coil input.

Why not just calculate the mechanical work compared to what the
SG is drawing?

The hammer is lifting up not perfectly up but in a slight rotation but
in such a small distance, a straight dead lift calculation for the weight of
the hammer to that distance should give a good ballpark. Then add
pendulum work per hammer lift and compare to SG draw.

Is it an impossible thing to calculate to get a general idea of the
comparison?


YouTube - Video Veljko Milkovic' - 2 Stage Oscillator with a Bedini pendulum. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeX_Tst2tU)

Yes had made this some time ago.

I like the design he has, easy to replicate.

142857
03-03-2011, 09:00 PM
YouTube - Bedini Milkovic two stage oscillator.AVI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXw8CccTEyk)

Just wanted to show this one, see what anybody might think of it? opinions? questions, advice(to or from).....

just throwing it out there.

I personally think it's just a fancy lever.....a lever is not OU.

I've got a few ideas in mind to try on the generation end but not that optimistic really.

Matthew Jones
03-03-2011, 10:19 PM
Thats a really nice setup. Personal I hang the coil from the same side of lever as the pendulum is swinging. Maybe suspended from the center so it in a fixed position from the pendulum all the time. This would allow you to lower the power on the motor to the absolute minimum. But thats just preference.
What you need to do now is add weight to the other end. You need enough weight so the pendulum oscillations can pick it up and drop it. Then you half that amount if you do some additional work. But you'll have to play with that.
A hand cranked flashlight or some could be driven.
A crankshaft could be used on the output. Or I am sure you have seen it a wheel a chain and overrun gear. Like bicycle.

Then see of you can generate and back feed.

Nice work.
Matt

Gdez
03-04-2011, 02:07 PM
Hey Matt, hows the bouncer comin along?

ltseung888
03-04-2011, 04:07 PM
YouTube - Video Veljko Milkovic' - 2 Stage Oscillator with a Bedini pendulum. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeX_Tst2tU)

Yes had made this some time ago.

I like the design he has, easy to replicate.

Please read and comment on the following:
Lead-out/Bring-in Energy - The locked teaching thread (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=610.0)

The slides 3-10 explain how gravitational energy can be brought-in from a pulse-pushed pendulum. Milkovic's pendulum does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.

142857
03-04-2011, 05:25 PM
I agree, I don't see it violating any laws either.
There are equal and opposite reactions all over it.

Matthew Jones
03-05-2011, 02:24 AM
Hey Matt, hows the bouncer comin along?

Its coming along. We have one part to finish and then we'll get ready to show it.

Just gotta get some time to finish it. But work keeps coming in so I gotta take it while Its there.

Matt

Hoxan
03-05-2011, 09:35 AM
YouTube - Bedini Milkovic two stage oscillator.AVI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXw8CccTEyk)

Just wanted to show this one, see what anybody might think of it? opinions? questions, advice(to or from).....

just throwing it out there.

I personally think it's just a fancy lever.....a lever is not OU.

I've got a few ideas in mind to try on the generation end but not that optimistic really.

Hello, this is very nice example where milkovic effect is achieved regardless of chaotic movement of lever. You can see it on 1.10 mins on video when you hear how lever moves down when pendulum is in highest positions.
When you compare it to
YouTube - Bedini-Powered Milkovic Two-Stage Oscillator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVCvP53Au60&feature=related) where oscillations are not synchronized and milkovic effect is not present. (Lever working side MUST be in its minimum at BOTH pendulum maximums, not only one...right). People usually do this wrong and do not achieve overunity effect.

Whats the electronics schematic driving the pendulum? Is pendulum a magnet ?

142857
03-05-2011, 05:41 PM
the pendulum is a 1" neo, driven by a regular ssg at 4.5 volts. Coil is air core and a little less than half the size of a standard bedini.

Just a note:

I added a rubberband and a one inch neo hanging from the 'work' end and bounced it up and down inside another coil....like a shake up flashlight. and made about 10-15 erratic milliamps and some fractions of voltage...but what was really interesting to me was that, without the coil, while my work end was just bouncing it's weight freely.....the rubberband helped the oscillations and everything became steady after just a moment, then, you can clearly see that the new pendulum on the work end is obviously not doing as much "work" as the actual pendulum.

Kirk
03-06-2011, 04:50 AM
I am no physicist.

However to say Newton's 3rd law is wrong, based upon the mechanized machinery devices is in error. And plain wrong.

While the guy can make his machine go on in a perpetual state, it is HE that has to sit there and exert the initial energy and continue to exert the force lest his balances and counter balances cease to operate.

If he stops providing the initial inertia, his device will stop.

You are looking at Newton's law from the improper perspective. And is he.

While theorized, it has never been PROVEN, or demonstrated, the Newton's 3rd law is in error.

FOr every action, there is and MUST be an equal and opposite reaction.

IF this were not the case, you should be able to start your car, with a battery and gasoline, as we do now, yet have the engine then produce MORE energy than it needs, thus feeding itself so it will continue to run...or operate without gasoline needed other than to start.

But, much like the mechanical contractions, once the energy ceases to exist, thus the motion will stop.

THis is true in his machines and this is true with your car. Outta gas? You go no where.

Newton's 3rd Law can also be interpreted as: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. THis means, from another view point, that there exists no possibility that any energy can produce MORE ENERGY than is required to sustain and produce continued energy.

Why cannot a computer hold more than 64K in memory base chips?

Even the metals balls that sit on desks that whack one another, sending the opposite ball in the opposite direction will eventually come to a stop.

A grandfather clock needs re-winding.

A wrist watch will one day need a new battery.

The sun consumes far more hydrogen than it releases heat.

This law is why all stars eventually die.

Until someone builds and successfully demonstrates an energy motion that can produce MORE energy than is required to keep it in motion, Newton's 3rd Law stands.

The evidence provided by a guy tapping a machine with his finger to keep it running does little to demonstrate the law is wrong or invalid.

Neat and fun to watch. But nonetheless, if you are in the crowd that says Newton was / is wrong, you are going on faith and not evidence.

As quantum mechanics has now at least theorized dark energy, as being far more prevalent than dark matter, it all adds up.

Energy is NOT ALL matter, yet the matter is dependent upon the energy. Without one, there will not be the other. This is the proper interpretation of Newton's 3rd Law.

Perhaps someone should be re-examining e=mc 2!

If dark mater does exists, Einstein was wrong. Not Newton.

Newton's Law is so true, it even works in the world of Kharma. What goes around, comes around.

THat is how true Newton's 3rd law is. It supercedes matter. It even works in the etherial.

But thanks for letting me blab!:)

yes, forces obey the third law. kinetic energy does not. consider the rifle. the recoil is the momentum not the ke

freepenguin
07-01-2011, 10:55 AM
I find the same principals from F. M. Chalkalis device too.


PENDULUM F. M. Chalkalis - mathematical proof of the device's OU operation
PENDULUM F. M. Chalkalis - a talented inventor


© Kanarev FM

Contact the author: kanphil@mail.ru

Recommend that you review the video first F.M.CHALKALIS ENERGY MULTIPLIER (http://chalkalis.blogspot.com/)

Abstract.

F. M. Chalkalis, he says, invented the power multiplier, which converts electrical energy into mechanical energy with an index of energy efficiency, he believes, is ten times greater than one. F.M.CHALKALIS ENERGY MULTIPLIER (http://chalkalis.blogspot.com/)


It's a open-loop system.

The extra energy comes for the gravitational field and Inertia of the main moving object.

F. M. Chalkalis has one trigger / timing motor on top and it keep turns the big sector keep rotating. The rotational force (Torque) of the sector is impressive.

There is another person on Youtube who shows a gravity wheel with electric actuators right on the wheel. The person's previous design was identical to F.M Chalkalis device. A tiny motor keep pushing 30 - 40 little pendulums on the edge of the wheel. Later on, he change them to 4 or 5 big pendulums. One or two pendulum are electric actuators and do kicking to maintain the wheel rotation at certain speed.

To harness the extra energy from Veljko's device, I would use a crankshaft and piston style mechanism to turn a big gear which will turn electric generator's shaft. For example, the weight ratio of trigger and main frame is 1:5, 2.5 extra energy can be used for external work.

I prefer F. M. Chalkalis device cause it's in constant rotation and easy to control the torque and adjust timing.

Furthermore, it's known fact is once an object starts moving, the force to maintain or increase speed gets less until certain degree. The terminal velocity of air occurs at 180km/h. The best speed for fuel millage is around 80km/h to 100km/h on most cars. To reach at 80km/h needs about 50hp and after that to maintain 80km/h speed requires 30hp (reduction of 20hp). But, the inertia of car lessen the force requirement.

Honestly, I think M. Chalkalis' method will work on a any size of wheel too. It is the open-loop system. Not contradicting known physical laws. The more the wheel turns, the less force it needs to maintain the rotation.

Imagine the wheel turns 300km/h in a seal vacuum chamber. How much the input to output ratio will be? 1 kg of mass turning 300km/h.

I'll post on my versions of diagram here.

All the gravity wheels including the one I've had for fews in mind always fail because they are close-loop system. Even though eliminating all the frictions between moving parts.

I stopped tossing away conventional laws of physics. I believe in the universe we live in open-loop system in nature. Stuck in close ideas/laws won't derive any new ideas or enhancement. Period.

Before I close this post, these devices won't ask such precise manufacturing of parts. I read through some pulse motors and the problems I found is I can't get the result or design system the way I want: too many variation, no concrete principals, needs high-precision parts. For example, Peter Lindemann Rotary Attraction Motor does make sense. The overall COP is well over 1. But, to achieve over 5, the motor has to be designed and built under little error of margin, high precision. The air gap needs to be very small that beyond most machine shops capacity.

Personally, such devices however good it is out of my touch. I disregard ZPE devices for the same reason. I don't have the resources. My personal budget and time has to be used for machine that's really feasible to me.

I've had great respect for the frontiers of free energy fields: John Bedini, Peter Lindemann, and many others. They are few levels ahead of tinkers / garage mechanics like me. The device has to be reasonable simple. It has to run by the spec 99.9999% whoever builds it.

Build a device and use it for myself everyday practically either battery charger or real power source, then I'll expand it to full energy generator. And I might help out other people around me. Cause at that point, they will see and touch what is the real FE device does 'Freedom!' Yay.

If the construction of a 100W generator turns out easy and it follows the principals, then I can build bigger one like any well-known machines: cars, airplane, electric motor. I think the magic number is 1kW. To use two or three 500W generators still pretty good but 1kW is something. It can run most of appliances. A well-designed house or even a electric car can run by one unit.

Sorry for my little rant.

Best wishes,
Hughe

ashtweth
07-05-2011, 05:02 AM
Check http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Veljko_Milkovic_Tesla_vision_about_gravitational_m achine.pdf

Gravitational magnetic hybrid

Roland
08-21-2011, 08:22 PM
I like this demonstration of the 2SO. It seem very clear and well done. Higher pendulum more weight lifted A of A&B - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMq53NPttUk&feature=related)
(you can just go to minute 6:30 to see it in normal maintaining operation)
I would like to no what other think of my conclusion about it? In other words do i understand this correctly?

I studied this in a frame by frame slow motion video program to get the times correct as possible.

The Work
His energy to keep this running is approximately 4lbs over 4 inches.
It lefts 70 plus lbs over 1.5 inches" two times.
So the work is

Input 4 lbs X 4" = 16
Output is 70 lbs X 1.5 X 2= 210
COP of work 13.25

A interesting observation is when i account for the time into this.
Using frame by frame program and it's time clock. All grey areas of measurements give it advantage to being less COP and being conservative with the estimates.

The Power

The Push (16) took 0.1 seconds
16 / .01 = 160 power

The upward movement of the weight (210) took 0.3 seconds.
210 / 0.3 = 700 power

The downward movement of the weight (210) took 0.1 seconds
(actually sightly faster closer to 0.08 seconds)
210 / 0.1 = 2100 power

COP of the upwards movement is 4.375
COP of the downward movements 13.125

So if i wanted to try and use the power of RHEAD100's 2SO i should try and harness the downward movement, rather than the upward movement.

Did i miss something?

gravitronic
10-11-2011, 10:32 PM
The third law states there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction but this is untrue. There is nothing that requires a reaction to OPPOSE movement as it is possible to have a reaction that assist further FORWARD movement increasing efficiency and COP (coefficient of performance). Below is one of the most simple ways to not only defy but totally make a mockery of the third law of motion. Only if a system is closed and both ends are rammed together will there be an opposing force.


The slingshot effect that we often see on Star Trek and other like shows where a spacecraft uses a planet's gravity to impart momentum on the spacecraft would be an example of what is quoted above... would it not?

kcarring
10-12-2011, 02:42 AM
The slingshot effect that we often see on Star Trek and other like shows where a spacecraft uses a planet's gravity to impart momentum on the spacecraft would be an example of what is quoted above... would it not?

It has been cited in one of the research papers, outside evaluations of Milkovics work, on his site, yes...

Cloxxki
10-12-2011, 07:28 AM
It has been cited in one of the research papers, outside evaluations of Milkovics work, on his site, yes...
Does that work with stationary planets? I doubt it. I bet the inertia of the planet is tapped to power the slingshot.
If you build a milkyway of stationary sun plus planets, there won't be much slingling, but a lot of crashing. But what do I know...

wrtner
10-12-2011, 01:17 PM
The slingshot effect that we often see on Star Trek and other like shows...

...and also every "round the solar system" grand tour that NASA has done.

lamare
03-02-2012, 06:33 PM
I think the working principle of Milkovic' pendulum is "synchronous parametric variation", the same principle used by Eric Dollard before:



Chris Carson Built the Rotary Electrostatic Converter. His design was based entirely on my electrical theory and math. It was designed to demonstrate and validate the concept of Synchronous Parameter Variation and the Four Quadrant Theory of Electricity. The device worked well. It had to spin up to around 10,000 RPM. This unit took Chris months to complete; to get all of the parts together, and to get it perfectly balanced and operational. Chris determined that it was starting to exhibit the effects of synthesis of electrical energy from the electrostatic field. This is a result of the variation of capacitance (C in Farrads) with respect to time (T in seconds) which results in a negative conductance G (in Siemens). Hence the generation of electric energy. Then, disinformants, whom I refer to as the “Montauk Crowd” swooped in on him after he completed this device, and he was never the same again, - he died of Brain Cancer a year or two later…

There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energy. It must be just as illegal to destroy energy as it is to create it – don’t you think? E is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency – this is: The Great White Lie…

[...]

Most are clueless about the importance of the Variation of Inductance and Capacitance with respect to time – and synchronous parameter variations. Read chapter 21 (XXI) titled REACTION MACHINES in Charles Proteus Steinmetz’s book titled “Alternating Current Phenomena”. There is also a Russian paper (brought to me by the Korean student as a gift) titled: “UBER DIE ERREGUNG VON ELETRISCHEN SCHWINGUNGEN DURCH PARAMETERAENDERUNG” von L. Mandelstam und N. Papalexi, published in 1934 in: J. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR (umlaut on the U - as should also be on the first U in the title of the paper) TECHNISCHE PHYSIK Band IV, Heft 1, that continues with what Steinmetz teaches in his books, and takes it all the way (Title translation: Concerning the Excitation of Electrical Waves Through Parameter Changes). In one picture in the paper, there appears to be a brightly glowing incandescent lamp connected to a network, with no apparent connection to a power source. It appears to be an Alexanderson type Mag. Amp. operating in a self oscillation mode. (Alexanderson Patent # 1,328,797 Jan. 20, 1920): Even though my copy of the paper is in Russian, the equations speak for themselves and echo the work of Steinmetz and Alexanderson. Ernst Alexanderson emigrated to America because of Steinmetz’s book, - he was determined to work with Steinmetz after studying it. Steinmetz was forced to reverse many of his equations in later books and was severely criticized by physicist Michael Pupin of Columbia University for not using Maxwell’s ideas and instead developing a methodology that was actually useful and practical for engineers. (Read, “Steinmetz, Engineer and Socialist” written by Ronald R. Kline.) Here it was said that General Electric gave Steinmetz permission to create Electricity form the square root of minus one…


This Mandelstam paper has recently been translated into English:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Mandelstam_Papalexi/Concerning%20the%20Excitation%20of%20Electrical%20 Waves%20Through%20Parameter%20Changes%20English%20 translation%201934.pdf


This explains the electrical analogy, but the principle is the same. Gravity is a dynamic force and is very closely related to the electric field. According to the excellent ether theory of Paul Stowe, gravity is the gradient of the electric field. See:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Stowe Personal E Mail (http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StowePersonalEMail)

So, gravity is a contracting movement of the ether, which IMHO has very much to do with Bernoulli's principle and the Venturi effect:

Bernoulli's principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle)
Venturi effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect)

So, gravity is like a river of ether flowing towards the earth and can therefore be harnassed, just like you can put a peddle wheel in a waterfall to extract energy. You just need a different kind of peddle wheel, and I think Milkovic' pendulum is just that..