Veljko Milkovic' - 2 Stage Oscillator Violates 3rd Law of Motion

[Matthew Jones]

Ahhh...
The bouncing ball.

Cheers
Matt

[Aaron]

bouncing ball

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.

[Matthew Jones]

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]

Velijko oscillator recovery

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]

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]

something different to think about?

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]

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]

over 1.0 cop

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]

Easy...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This aught to help increase the cop of the veljko oscillator

YouTube - kinetic energy multiplier theory

[kcarring]

YouTube - kinetic energy multiplier theory

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.