Universal Two-State Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier

Universal Two-State Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier

MUST SEE VIDEO!!

Universal Two-State Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier - Google Video

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!

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

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.

Newton's laws clarified

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
"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
His Nobel lecture is called Time, Structure and Fluctuations and is available here:
Ilya Prigogine - Nobel Lecture

Lots of good arguments on why this won't work!

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.

closing the loop

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).

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

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.

A refrigerator is doing more work than the operator inputs

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

"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
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
"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.

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

neat resonance video

like the Veljko oscillator principle
YouTube - Primary Pendulum Creates Secondary Oscillations

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

pendulum suggestion

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

Rick