Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:22 am.
Von Ives reports that the results of his replication of the Milkovic secondary oscillator resulted in an input:output ratio showing about a 48.6% efficiency. He says that the "amplification" described is nothing more than simple leverage.
Submitted by Von Ives on March 20, 2007 9:37 PM in response to:
Directory:Milkovic Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator - Serbian inventor, Veljko Milkovi?, shows how leveraged secondary oscillations produce around twelve times more energy than the input energy supplied to the primary pendulum. Highest scientific rating of "original scientific work" granted the patented technology.
I found the article on the V. Milkovic pendulum oscillator intriguing enough to spend most of a day attempting to replicate and test the device about as the original illustration is depicted.
From reading most of the associated material on the web site article, I find far too much attention and effort is paid to to the input/output forces and not enough to measuring the energy input/output.
For example: A 200 lb. man can stand on the platform of a beam weight measuring scale and
perhaps a 10 lb. or so weight can balance the beam. Moving the beam end with the small weight
significantly up and down energy will about equal the very small displacement up and down of the big man energy. No surprises there. And my experimenal finding results wise is about the same with the pendulum oscillator.
My device, tho a little more crude than what was presented, seemed to point to what to expect
performance wise. The beam was wood of 3/8" x 3/4" cross section x 36" long. The fulcrum
was located near the left end at 4" right from the pendulum suspension pivot. The wire suspension was 12" down from the beam pivot to the 4 lb. Pb. weight. A 2 lb. Pb. weight was affixed about half way between the fulcrum and the pendulum pivot to balance the 31+ " arm to the right side of the fulcrum.
A one lb. weight was affixed at 16" right of the fulcrum to balance the pendulum 4 lb. weight.
(Lever-Arm x Wt. = Torque Moment i.e., 4 lb. x 4" = 16 lb.-in. and 1 lb. x 16" = 16 lb.-in.)
A 3" vertical small beam was pivotally attached to the balance beam at 4" right from the fulcrum.
This was to be in contact with a bath-room weight scale underneath. This was to make measurment
of forces easy i.e., input dynamic force from the pendulum 4" left from fulcrum and output measured force 4" right from fulcrum also.
A horizontal spring-loaded fish weighing scale was attached to the vertical pendulum wire 3" down from the pivot for pulling the wire and therefore weight to and fro. That resulted in a much smaller stroke effort than attaching the scale to the weight it self. And besides - if that swinging 4 lb. wt. had struck my hand accidentally, it probably would have hurt!
I don't have any photos nor video of the test rig - and I have already disassembled it - but I believe the 'word-picture' pretty well describes it. It was almost exactly as the original sketch posted.
I. Initially the 3 in. vertical beam was pivotally also attached to the weighing scale.
Oscillation of the pendulum was about 45 degrees either side of vertical for 90 degrees total per 'swing'. It required about 2 lb. max. consistently to keep the weight swinging. The horizontal swing travel of the scale was measured at about 4 - 1/2 inches. Therefore the force average would be about 1 lb. The pulsed force on the weighing scale was also consistently about l lb. Not good.
II. On the next testing, the vertical short beam was un-attached to the weighing scale so torque momentum could be had with the free oscillation of the main beam - allowing the vertical short beam to strike the weighing scale repeatedly.
The weighing scale was attached to the test bench via a slightly flexible board so as to allow the scale to flex vertically in addition to the small compression/relaxation vertical displacement of the scale itself. This total was measured as 7/16 inch displacement. Force x Distance = Work.
The oscillating torque momentum allowed an impulsed force of 10 lbs. with same as above
input to the pendulum. A strange rhythm resulted. The scale reading would alternate between
about 8 lbs. and 12 lbs. I took the average reading to be 10 lbs. And the overall average of the stroke to be 5 lbs.
Input: 4 - 1/2 inch stroke x l lb. average = 4 - 1/2 inch - lb. work.
4 -1/2 in. - lb. / 12"/ft. = 0.375 ft.-lb. work input/oscillation stroke.
Output: 7/16 (=.4375)inch stroke x 5 lb. average = 2.1875 inch - lb. work.
2.1875 in.-lb. / 12"/ft. = 0.1823 ft. - lb. work output/oscillation stroke.
Efficiency: Output / Input = % Efficiency: 0.1823 / 0.375 = 48.6% Eff.
More sophisticated devices will probably improve on my project efficiency. But I will
be very surprised to see anywhere near unity, much less o/u/o operations!
But we can remain hopeful. Afterall, I am working on a possible o/u/o electric generator
operating on a new scientific paradigm theory that includes the old.
Tom Bearden & Lee Carroll have already published the abstract theories that make this
a possibility. I have experimental empirical evidence that they are real. Tom Bearden is
NOT the complete quack that some try to paint him as. Remember, the Wright brothers
were considered as quacks to start with also!
I will be interested to see the results of anyone else who duplicates the effort. Again, forces
alone mean nothing. It is force applied over a distance that counts as 'work' (energy).
email: [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Milkovic_replication_reported_at_PESWiki.com email@example.com]
04-01-07: I must add: Having read P.Lindemann's opinion, there
appears to be a real need for a good energy in/output test.
Mine was relatively crude, but indicative. However, there is one
more item relevant. I only measured the downward beam stroke on
the weighing scales. That was the basis for the 48.6% efficiency
calculation. I did notice that the beam on the upward stroke
bounced off the top mechanical limit stop with considerable force.
IF that impact has the same energy output as the bottom one, then
the output would be doubled, i.e. 97.2% efficiency, which is very
good in normal energy transmission systems. But it is still short
of 'unity' - much less over unity.
The 'jury' is out untill someone succeeds in valid & accurate in/output energy measurements. VI