Milkovic Two Stage Oscillator - Dec 2008

[greendoor]

I see that Milkovic has published a new report that is a more accurate attempt at measuring the COP than his ridiculous torch shaking experiment.

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jo ... rement.pdf

Maybe the Serbs don't have the cash to do this right - I really don't know what their problem is. It seems to me that it would be extremely easy to prove whether a Two Stage Oscillator provides Over Unity COP or not.

The water pump version provides a very clear measure of output power. The number of litres of water pump in a period of time represent work done and power required.

Milkovic insists on using human hand power for the input, and that's where his credibility gets stretched. Surely a simply electric solenoid could provide the input power - and that would be very easy to measure.

Many people have dismissed Milkovic - but I am wondering if (despite his bad science) that he might still have the Bessler secret here.

The detachment of input from output is what intrigues me the most about the Two Stage Oscillator. Stalling the Output does not stall the input. Tthe possible output force can be huge - limited only by materials and design.

[rlortie]

Greendoor,

A duel solenoid machine has been built for some months now. Built by "the Builder" of Milkovic's group located in Victoria BC and is a close contact of mine.

I have a video in my Firefox download collection. The link I got it from is no longer coming up. I have tried to record it using Media player but it will not allow recording.

If anyone knows how to circumvent this problem I would gladly pass it on.

Ralph

[greendoor]

Very interesting rlortie - would you say the video indicates success or failure to provide over unity? That's all we really need to know :) Videos can be falsified, so they aren't ultimate proof.

[rlortie]

The video proves neither, it was built by a retired machinist who is into electronics as a hobby. The video is simply a show of the machine running.

As to whether the machine is O-U or not, I leave up to others. To my knowledge no one has found a way to utilize the short stroke of the output other than pumping water and lighting LED flashlights.

Ralph

[greendoor]

Thanks - I think i've seen the video on Utube, and yes - it proved nothing.

Pumping water is useful, measurable power output. I wouldn't sneeze at that. I think the problem is that unless we can see the functioning device, we tend to analyse it with the classic physics that prove it can't work.

It's just annoying that it seems so easy to prove whether these things work as claimed, and nobody is doing the obvious. That either means they are an utter fraud - or the truth is too dangerous to full reveal.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Ralph and all,

If you want to record a video from Utube you need a programme. It is called save2pc and the light version of it is free. It will work with Utube, the registered version (not free) will work with other streaming media as well.

The programme is small and works well.

Hans von Lieven

[rlortie]

Hans, thanks for the lead on the youtube! The video I was trying to copy is now on the Milkovic Peswiki site. It is in the table of contents as 1.12.1 Ron...

Greendoor wrote:

Pumping water is useful, measurable power output. I wouldn't sneeze at that. I think the problem is that unless we can see the functioning device, we tend to analyse it with the classic physics that prove it can't work.

I disagree! you can see the operation quite clearly. Note that during the water pump demonstration, he is pulling up on the pump handle to show the resistance, he is not pushing down! Classic physics says it will work. What is in doubt IMO is how much force is required to keep the pendulum reaching full azimuth?

The beam is not producing force on the down stroke but rather on the up as the pendulum reaches six o'clock. It reaches azimuth twice per every one balance point per cycle where work is achieved.

Not unlike my intuitions of Bessler, it works backwards from what assumed.

Ralph

[graham]

This is a bunch of balony.

In the Mechanical Amplifier demo he shows that a small force applied to his swinging pendulum wil raise a 74lb load and it does.
However the 74lb load is allowed to fall and in doing so drives the pendulum. Energy is just being transfered from one side of the beam to the other.

Now if that 74lb weight were being ratcheted up higher and higher with each full swing he would have something.
It doesn't and he doesn't

This is the basis of his water pump . HE is doing all the work.

Graham

[rlortie]

Graham,

You are one member I would hate to get in a debate with, but if it will lift 75 pounds each time it cycles, doe it not stand to reason it could lift the same 75 pounds in increments.

Unlike water the mass stays the same weight. Water could only be pushed up until its weight by mass equaled the machine output force. 75 pounds for a head of water or 75 pounds to infinity of solid mass.

Please understand that this is all hypothetical as we/I do not know what the input force is to lift 75 pounds.

So in accord with your statement; why has lifting a mass in increments not been displayed.

[graham]

Ralph sez

You are one member I would hate to get in a debate with, but if it will lift 75 pounds each time it cycles, doe it not stand to reason it could lift the same 75 pounds in increments.

No Ralph it doesn't because that 75lb weight once raised has potential energy .
This potential energy is returned back to the system when the weight pulls back down to it's starting position . In other words the 75lb wt is driving the pendulum and the man tapping lightly on the swinging pendulum bob is just making up for frictional and other losses in the whole setup.

You won't be able to change my mind .

I can't get back for an argument today but I shall be back tomorrow.

Graham

[bluesgtr44]

I tend to agree with Graham. I might have missed it, but where is the time factor in this represented? If he is using the spring as depicted in the drawing by pumping his hand....what is the rate of this? I think with subtle differences in his speed, he could manipulate this to seem to be OU. Not really impressed with this.....


Steve

[rlortie]

Well I did a query and here is the response I received. This response is from a friend and contact involved with the Milkovic research.

Keep in mind that there are two power impulses to the beam.

Starting with a balanced beam... on the up swing the pendulum 'appears' to lose weight, thus allowing the output end to fall...
but when the pendulum swings back down, the fall under gravity makes the pendulum heavier than when it is at rest, driving the
output end of the arm up.

To illustrate... take a bucket of water and swing it by your side, when the bucket is straight out there is a pull straight out on your arm,
for sure, but how much does the bucket weigh? nothing.

Now stand on the mall roof and have your buddy drop the bucket of water over the side on a rope... how much does the bucket weigh
at the end of a 10 foot drop? enough to pull you off the roof, right?

So these are the two input forces to the arm. I am not familiar with the 74 pound weight lift experiment, so hesitate to comment on it but it depends on whether this is including part of the counter balance weight? If it does not... then there is no weight transfer between sides. But if this is part of the counter balance then there will be... The example problem needs to be more clearly defined.

[Fletcher]

http://www.keelytech.com/news/milkovic.html

hope you don't mind Hans ?

[Michael]

This is a bunch of balony.

In the Mechanical Amplifier demo he shows that a small force applied to his swinging pendulum wil raise a 74lb load and it does.
However the 74lb load is allowed to fall and in doing so drives the pendulum. Energy is just being transfered from one side of the beam to the other.

Now if that 74lb weight were being ratcheted up higher and higher with each full swing he would have something.
It doesn't and he doesn't

This is the basis of his water pump . HE is doing all the work.

Graham

You've said all that need to be said Graham.

[greendoor]

That's quite a perpetual motion machine he's drawn ... reminds me of Besslers poem, it seems to have all the ingredients ...

I still think this is waay overcomplicating this thing. The two stage oscillator is an extremely simple device, and it should be very easy to prove or disprove overunity.

I would propose replacing the hand-driven pendulum with an electric-motor-driven pendulum or single spoke shaft with a weight on the end. I see no reason why this pendulum can't rotate through 360 degrees instead of oscillating back & forth. A high ratio gearbox could allow a very small motor to slowly rotate this weight on a single spoke. This would cause the larger beam to cycle between overbalanced and underbalanced in just the same way. If we included a heavy flywheel, the gravity loss of the weight falling would power the weight rising - so with the beam at rest, the energy cost of rotating this weight would be solely friction losses - very minimal.

What we are acheiving is have a weight that cycles from weightlessness through double weight. On average, the weight is the same, and the energy input close to zero - but we have this constantly oscillating weight with which to overbalance/underbalance the main beam.

The use of a small electric motor would allow the precise measurement of input power.

I think my statement above about pumping water was misunderstood. All I meant to say is that when you have a situation where a device is actually pumping water, it is extremely easy to calculate the work done in litres per hour, and therefore the power output of the device. I wasn't claiming anything about the specific video - just that in theory, pumping water is very measurable.

I still think there is a chance this really is an overunity device ... and this needs to be put to rest once and for all.

I believe that when the beam is at rest (stalled) the cost to keep the pendulum/weighted-spoke swinging or turning is mere friction. However, once the beam moves down, large degrees of rotation are lost - meaning the weight goes down, and energy and time will be required to bring it back up.

But - the thing that gives me hope is that the beam cycles through two short but very high-torque pulses for each swing of the pendulum. In other words, the degrees lost are regained - so maybe if this thing was well designed it could offer overunity.

Slowing it down would reduce some of the design issues of out-of-control vibrations.