Superiority of Pendulum Drive - Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy

[karvak1492]

Ako bi klatno pokretali nalik ljuljacke sa elektricnom pogonom, dobijen napr. iz solarnih celija. Dobili bi smo efikasan nacin inercijalne propuzije, gde glavni izvor energije bi bilo gravitaciona sila, a katalizator energija suncev svetlost...izraditi napr. model camca gde nece biti potrebe za jarbol, vesla ni za propeler elise ;)

[Ulianot]

@karvak1492

Veljko Milkovic vec poseduje patent iz 2005. godine za pogon camca/plovila gde nisu potrebna veska, jarbol...

Pogledati na zvanicnom sajtu: veljkomilkovic(dot)com

"Naprava sa oscilujucim elasticnim krilom za pogon plovila - P-95/2005."

[karvak1492]

@Ulianot Divno. Cenim sve Milkoviceve eksperimente i znam sta bi znacilo njihova prakticna primena u vezi energetike cele planete... Nazalost ljudi su navikli na fosilna goriva, pa ta tehnologija ih zaslepljuje tako, da ne primete genijalne stvari. Nafte ima jos otpr. 40-50 godina. Koriscenjem fosilnih goriva smo upropastili klimu cele zemlje. Ovaj globalni problem trazi prventsveno moralno resenje, ne tehnicko. Pozdrav iz Subotice.

[jallaguri]

If the pendulum is 90% efficient, the other option is only 30% efficient.

Rolling a metal ball towards a wall produce lots of waste energy at the impact.

Cool experiment, but not over unity ;-)

[UniversePirate]

Do you know basic Physics?

If you know, then you should know that there's no "excess energy" there, only a more efficient way to take advantage of that energy.

Reasons:

1) The ball wasn't dropped at the same hight in the two experiments.

2) MOST IMPORTANT, the collision of the ball is far from being a perfect elastic collision therefore, most of the energy of the ball is lost as thermal energy upon impact.

3) If there were no friction forces the cart wouldn't move.

Thank you for your time...

[quemundodios1]

@UniversePirate 1: the initial potential energy in both cases are the same, the kinetic energy in the ball is the same.

2: yes but, have you measured it?, how much energy is lost in the collision?

3:uf, if ther were no friction forces the cart would move a lot of kilometers. Friccion losses disipates the movement of the cart and the movement of the pendulum.

[qtxyz]

An resort at the base where tha ball strikes will produce the same result .

[qtxyz]

That is only eficienty use of energy. In the first case the most of the energy is used by the inertia + friction and in the second case is used only by the friction force.

[TheBlackSky000]

You can improve it by making the wheels rotating only in one direction and preventing them from rotating to the back. But I have one more comment you may didn't notice that the pendulum is made of metal that means it has a weight and in the 1st demo it observe some of the kinetic energy of the metal ball at the time the ball strike the edge of the cart but in the second demo the pendulum is already has a potential energy that converted to kinetic energy helping the metal ball to move the cart.

[Lechoslowianin]

The first time some of the energy is converted into thermal energy by collision with the wall.

[HordakD0162]

Textbook example of bad calculations. We actually did similar experiments in both basic and highschool decades ago (with pendulums, magnets, electromotor, etc.). If you could not figure out why one way seemed to do more work than the other, you were given bad grades.

I guess you were not doing these experiments in your school or you failed those physics practical exams.

[abhijithcr]

Keep a spring at the place where the metal ball hits, and provide a groove for stopping the ball from sliding sideways; it will make the ball to bounce back and hit multiple times, thus avoiding shock absorption wastage and increasing travel length. Also, drop ball from the center of the vehicle and not just from one side - so that it wont turn sideways (watch closely-it was turning sideways becos the ball was hitting closer to the right side wheels)

[abhijithcr]

Let me point out some facts:

1. While dropping the ball, it collides with the body and lot of energy is wasted as sound and also turned to heat by shock absorption. (no sound wastage in second case)

2. While lifting the ball in second case, u lift the pendulum also; for which u have to spend more energy than just lifting the ball. The potential energy stored in the ball plus the pendulum then gets converted to kinetic energy for your car.

[mindprism]

Put a U track on the platform instead, use omni-directional bearings not wheels -- I actually think this thing is 'sailing'.

[Diligoquodcontemno]

All this shows is that controlled release of energy is more efficient than chaotic release of energy, which is a pretty common sense conclusion.

[Yourfishman]

Yeah the test could have been better. BUT! Yes memory foam (or...) at the contact point of the ball. That would have made a difference. Much difference? Probably not.

The ball should have been rolled in the center. Off to the side wasted some energy with carts path angle.

But the fiction of the ball rolling? The bearing has at least 10Xs more friction than a single rolling Ball! Also the swinging arm? Really? Come on guys.

No not magic, just the tip of an iceberg of useful info IMO.

[lezbriddon]

does not take into account energy lost from ball by impacting the plastic and deforming it, just the sound it makes loses a good few cm' guys doing card tricks while ppl gasp, whats next selling goldmines.....

[vvijatov]

...in first case, energy is wasted in table under the small front wheels, making up with itself stronger force of friction as primary effect, "helping"  so energy to find shorter way to transform itself ....no miracles...only knowledge....

[kingssman2]

The car moved further on the pendulum is because there was enough left over energy to swing back and drop again. the first experiment the metal ball dropped, stopped, transferring all energy into force which applied at a downward angle caused the car to move forward.10cm. in #2 the ball converts its energy into force, but was allowed to rebound via pendulum and drop again and again. u can see on the first swing it went 10cm as seen at 3:27. Same results if u used a bouncy ball in Exp #1

[DanFrederiksen]

interesting but probably nothing significant. the experiment could be tried with te ball running down on a spring so the momentum transfer is slower. and of course the pendulum arm needs to swing with it to gain the potential energy from its fall as well. that can't be neglected although I don't think that's the difference

[Khazam1992]

It's cause of Thermal Energy .

first time the metal ball pushed the mass by touch it , so some of Potential Energy changed into Thermal Energy . second time the metal ball pushed the mass by pendulum method , so all of Potential Energy changed into Kinetic Energy "nearly " .

[planetdarwin]

Interesting, but not magical.

[SealTooGreat]

Most of physics's deep underlying principles are being discovered from observation of very simple experiments such as this.

I think that is all about potential energy and gravity! Kinetic energy is just the result.

1) rolling ball - Potential energy is changed only once.

2) pendulum ball - Potential energy is changed many times due oscillation.

[joaos10]

This is not inertial propultion. See this experiment:

G9MXRpwW3Bk

[Cloxxki]

ALSO, more importantly, the rod itself is used as additional input for the pendulum experiment. It's dead weight with the rolling ball.

Very unfair experiment.

[Cloxxki]

There should be a stop behind the cart. The ball rolling down is propelling the cart backwards. Also, a small ramp is needed to make the ball impact the board level to the ground. Furthermore I'd like to estimate that the impact of the ball wastes significant energy, the pendulum has smoothness. It is an interesting experiment to undertake, but it's not fair to the ball.

Also a repeat is needed with one-way cluthes in the wheels to even the playing field, no backwards rolling at all.

[ZachHuZerdaty]

it actually does move backwards very slightly.

[TheSmashFiles]

sorry man but the fact the ball is moving forward means there's some back pressure on the cart; the fact it isn't rolling during this stage is the result of friction in the wheels, not the success of the propulsion system. nice construction though.

[ZachHuZerdaty]

@TheSmashFiles it actually does move backwards very slightly.

[ZachHuZerdaty]

@Ulianot anything moving from the inert axis of the pendulum has been affected by your initial force, the weight of the pendulum arm has to be included in the first test, and then removed for the second test and tested with a ball with equal weight to both the ball and pendulum arm combined being rolled across the car, because if your counting it as part of the cars weight then in the pendulum test where it is imparted with the initial force it is accounting for its own weight with its own force

[ZachHuZerdaty]

@ZachHuZerdaty also, i was wondering if you were including the longer path and less interfering components of the pendulum with the crude loss of energy to the ball upon its impact as part of your example. because in all honesty the pendulum is obviously more effective then that without even making this example.

[UncleKennybobs]

The music is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the claim that there is excess energy here.

[ScottishProfessor]

Interesting. Right idea.

[infamous805187]

Doesn't the ball have more potential energy when attached to the pendulum. The path is much longer?

[ScottishProfessor]

The right idea. Think propulsion in the inverse atmospheric environment of space, but the use of manipulated centrifugal force. Maybe Newton's mechanical model isn't all that outdated after all. I uploaded a vid, Theory of gravity part 5 discusses this concept. Your video is very simple but excellent. Thanks for posting.

[AYOakaM3]

how did you build the pendulum rod

[Ulianot]

@AYOakaM3

The pendulum rod is made of metal. The rod was welded to the bearing housing.

[identernet]

@Ulianot

The minute you try to drive the pendulum and not rely on the potential energy of the pendulum, then the drive reaction will cause the cart to go backwards, thereby no movement.

[lordjavathe3rd]

I think I hurt my head looking at this video.

[manoftnuva]

Nothing new... You've lost a lot of potential energy on nosing of ball at impact. But in the second test all the potential energy was transmitted to kinetic by the harmonic movement.

[prozack1312]

You misspelled "length".

[mrgalleria]

Alo ha,

The energy I see at work here is not as much kinetic as gravity. So then, use gravity as a fuel.

The arm angle and cart angle both utilize gravity fuel.

[dstabi]

In the first case the great amount of potential energy is converted into heat. Pendulum enable better conversion in kinetic energy.

[mityno1]

Either with or without the pendulum, the ball must be raised to a given height and released.

Raising the ball is work done outside of the experiment.

Swinging the ball on a low friction well-lubricated pendulum bearing is a more efficient means of converting energy to propelling the cart than crudely letting the ball slam into the cart... OK, what's the point?

Raising the ball into position still requires more work effort than simply pushing the cart directly with an equivalent force.

[Raystonn]

The mere existence of the pendulum is not being debated. The use of the pendulum is. When you roll the ball , the pendulum sits there doing nothing but adding mass to the system. When you swing the ball on the pendulum, the pendulum is also lifted in addition to the ball, adding further potential energy. This energy is released as both the pendulum and the ball have their potential energy converted to kinetic energy.

[Raystonn]

I'm amazed that I'm the first to point out that the heavy pendulum the ball is attached to is also falling and contributing energy. Unless he pendulum itself has no mass, this experiment is invalid. Perhaps he could try measuring the movement caused by the pendulum without the ball. I'd bet on it being close to 20cm. The ball only contributes close to 10cm of movement, whether on the pendulum or not.

[Ulianot]

The pendulum without the ball was also attached there when we tried to measure path passed by using rolling ball.

We do not believe the presence of the mass of pendulum rod made experiment invalid because it was there in both cases.

[politis1989]

yeah but when u roll the metal ball u didnt turn the rod like the second attempt...

[YofterMofter]

@Ulianot It was attached there but it wasn't moving with the ball that time. Also, the ball rolling down probably has a greater drag than the bearing of the pendulum. And the rolling ball crashes into the cage so it stops the ball quick, while there's no direct, crashing contact with the ball during the movement of the pendulum.

[shreedhar333]

@YofterMofter :that's exactly what i thought. the ball while rolling down(neglecting the friction involved in cart's motion because it's same in both the cases) has considerable friction which uses up some of the potential energy of the ball and converts it to thermal energy. While the motion of the ball as a pendulum is opposed by the friction within the bearings which is relatively very less. Thus, it is this thermal energy which accounts for the excess 20cm.

[rathat48]

@Ulianot Yes but you didn't use the pendulum, having it there wont have any effect.

[ZAXA11]

@Ulianot BUT IT DID NOT HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT IN THE SECOUND ONE AS YOU FAILED TO PICK IT UP IN THE FIRST ONE

[Ulianot]

@ZAXA11

You are wrong. The ball attached to the pendulum doesn't have the higher initial potential energy because the ball doesn't fall to the same level like in the first case (the ball doesn't fall to the surface of the cart like in the first case). The path of ball (attached to the pendulum) is parallel with the path of ball when it freely rolls down.

So the potential energy is the same in the both cases.

Carefully watch the video demonstration again.

[ZAXA11]

@ZAXA11 i was taking about the Pendulum shaft

[UniversePirate]

@Ulianot but you didn't move it along with the rolling ball!

[zoomer1985]

when the ball rolled down, it lost some of the energy to sound, heat.... also, when the ball was rolling , it had two types of energy, rotational and translational kinetic energy.... the type that mostly contributed to the cart moving was only translational... when the ball was attached to the rod, it only had translational energy. so all of that energy turned into motion of the cart. That's why the cart moved further (no sound, less heat because no contacting and more importantly no rotation.

[iPhoneanator]

@Raystonn The pendulum would probably have contributed but not to 20cm. As any physicist knows you can get more input than output if you absorb something from the environment. Take the example of any heat pump.

The trick is to get this minute amount of energy to overcome energy losses - if we ever do manage to produce an extremely efficient device, you could potentially get energy from the gravity and magnetic field of the earth.

[eudaemonian]

i'd say the difference in distance would propably equal to the force applied to the wall (when the ball slams on it) so nothing out of the ordinary here, it is a simple way of showing how same mass can act differently when set up differently, which is what we would expect as long as the laws of physics are still valid, to put it straight up, reducing air resistance, friction, drag will also improve the distance by simply transferring the energies involved

[TheAntionez]

@iPhoneanator It is impossible to get more kinetic energy out of any mechanical or electrical device than the amount already stored in the device. I understand that efficiency is important but even absolute efficiency cannot make more energy than what is stored nor is it possible. There will always be friction wherever one goes in the universe. Read about the law of conservation of energy.

[quemundodios1]

@TheAntionez impossible? tell me the scientific demostration of it. Who scientific has demostrated it? I can´t find it. The firs law of thermodinamics has not been demostrated yet. Nobody has demostrated it¡¡¡

[mityno1]

The propulsion force is very deceptive.

The energy propelling the cart is the hand "winding up" the pendulum "uphill" against gravity, as if the pendulum were a spring. Releasing the pendulum is like releasing a spring. The cart won't work with a self-contained motor, the forces cancel.

NASA has a paper called, "Responding to Mechanical Antigravity" that explains why no mechanisms have achieved linear thrust in free space.

Google: NASA/TM—2006-214390

click "I'm feeling lucky"

[ronmann606]

Why do you move so slow?

[runaway9413]

Dumb ass doesn't even know how to use a ruler look at the ruler when he zooms in to show you how far the car went he says its like 10.3 cm when it was like 2 cm

[MarkTwist20]

You need glasses cause you don't see very well. Or you can't read metric system?

The axis of the back wheels is at 0cm and the back wheels passed the path of 10.5 cm!

[runaway9413]

Look at the size ratio of the car the person and the distance it traveled that guy is using a millimeter scale or something

[runaway9413]

And metric rulers don't go by 5 cm with 5 millimeter increments in between

[MarkTwist20]

Your sense of perception is not good - the size of an adult hand is min. 15 cm - compare his hand with the ruler and you will see it's a metric ruler.

It goes by 5cm because it's school blackboard ruler. We had the same one in high school.

[ronmann606]

@runaway9413 your a dumb ass the ruler is in 5cm increments.

[narqval]

The difference in the path here is due to different forces at work. Pendulum is perfectly centered on the cart, and it doesnt impose any torque on the cart. In the free-rolling ball, it rolls down near the side of the cart, which results as both the torque on the cart and the linear force. This way the energy is not solely spent on moving forward but is also spent on rotation (if you look carefuly you can see it). If the ball would roll at the center, the path would be nearly the same.

[Antigrav47]

This is THE key to rectifying centrifugal force in one direction for propulsion purposes.

[jabberwock11]

What's this supposed to prove? I can do the same thing standing on a skateboard. However it doesn't work without friction so I don't see how this is any better than driving wheels with a motor.

[shubus]

Why Milkovic thinks there is "extra" energy here is a mystery. There isn't any. A self-runner from these concepts is NOT POSSIBLE. If anyone thinks differently, then show the world.

[MarkTwist20]

There is no any thinking. I don't see it. There is just a simple experiment (easy to replicate) with obvious result speaking for itself.

[cloudstrife602]

@shubus the demonstration from this video is not to show any extra energy, but to show the superiority of TRANSMISSION of energy. The issues i have with the demonstration are the following. A: The path the ball takes in the classic potential energy to kinetic energy demonstration and B: he did fail to lift the pendulum arm and have it apply its potential energy as well.

Both of these are easily corrected.

[quemundodios1]

@shubus imposibility of perpetuum mobile has´nt been demostrated. In this experiment we saw centrifugal force makin energy from nothing, we have inertial propulsion and extra energy. In phisic books fron university the authors tell us that centrifugal force is ficticious, it is false, centrifugal force is very real.

We need NEW PHISICS, NEWTON PHISIC IS WRONG.

[oystla]

What you need to prove is that an electrical motor driving the arm with the ball will actually propell the vehicle forward. Preferably when it hangs in the air and propels it in a circular motion.

[oystla]

When the ball is just rolling down the "hill" most of the potetnial energy is relelased as heat in the wall and ball, and little energy is recovered into kinetic energy in the vehicle.

When the ball is connected to the rotating arm, more of the potential energy is regained as kinetic energy in the vehicle, therefore it travels a longer distance.

[MarkTwist20]

If you believe the most of the potential energy is lost in the heat, please replicate the above experiment measuring the change of air temperature (put your cart in a temperature controlled box) and the metal ball temperature and report us what you'll get. We don't need here the quote from the textbook. This is the experimental physics (mechanics).

[Xrick56]

it's a ghost you tards

[anonimation1234]

A ghost is pushing the cart

True story

Also, god did it too!

[spiritass]

and this is superior as compared to what? Smashing balls against the carriage? Is it applicable or just a nice demo of the fact that you loose energy upon impact of non-perfect bodies?

[cornbread4methnx]

Has anyone thought of one way wheels yet?

stupid not too lookin at his toy there.

[niente2]

There is no excess of energy. Energy is simply lost in collision. To make the cart travel even more, he should attach a cord to the ball and wind it around the rear axis of the cart, so the energy loss is very low (it should travel for at least 50 cm with this method).

In my opinion these experiment are really useless.

[MarkTwist20]

It's seems you didn't watch the video above. The work done (the distance the cart traveled) is what was compared here in these two cases.

[duesiswild]

and #2. yes the inelastic collision has tons of losses, but you also can't convert any of its energy. The point was to show that (if they had both started at the same position) the amount of energy required to get them to the starting point would have been the same, but the kinetic energy that was transferred into USEFUL momentum in the case of the pendulum nearly increased 3 fold.

[duesiswild]

I love the "scientific" types who want to say, its not an apples to apples comparison, and that the two systems energy is the same, or that the pendulum started at a higher height. Those are all realistically irrelevant as #1. 2 inches in height difference would NOT even account for a doubling of the movement.

[bigface01]

pendulum ball was at a higher height...more energy

[bigface01]

nevermind... i just relived that the displacement is actually the same in both cases, i'm stumped can anyone tell me why its going further in the second case?

[MarkTwist20]

Fault - there wasn't more energy in the case of the pendulum ball. Don't forget that the pendulum trajectory was parallel with the metal ball trajectory. The pendulum had the higher starting point but since it was attached to the pendulum rod it didn't fall down to the same height as the metal ball did :) There were two parallel trajectories, so the energy was the same in both cases.

[Cloxxki]

Why it the rolling ball hitting its stop at an angle from the floor?

Where did the ball's rotating energy go?

Not a fair comparison!

[MarkTwist20]

Don't forget the title of this video - it is a potential energy to kinetic energy experiment! Watch any similar demonstration or consult any textbook and you will see that in the case of free fall ball the kinetic energy is transfered in the noise, heat and crash with the surface. So it was the same here, the kinetic energy was transfered in the impact with the cart and that caused the cart moved forward.

[Drevtoobe]

Well, this is another clip by what I assume is a well-intentioned person that proves nothing. I challenge somebody, anybody, to reply to me and point out the huge flaw in this clip.

[Drevtoobe]

Correcton, there are actually two huge flaws in this clip.

[ashtweth]

Build it and test it your self or your comments are not significant, prove it doesn't work by building it

[Drevtoobe]

Ash, I didn't say that there was anything wrong in the actual demonstration shown in this clip at all. So there is nothing for me to build and test, I will get exactly the same results. To be clearer, I am saying that there are two huge flaws in the understanding and interpretation of this clip. So I challenge you, can state what they are?

[ashtweth]

your right there is nothing for you to build and test leave that to engineers who do do that. Dont waste your time we are not interested in naysayers, build it and prove it doesn't work, or YOUR THEORY i said that to you first. Come back after and lets talk- Ashtweth

[Drevtoobe]

Like I said, I don't dispute the clip on face value at all. What do you think that I think the problems are?

[ashtweth]

The problems are unless you provide a physical model of what your "idea's are" you dont know what your talking about I have nothing more to say. BUILD IT MEASURE IT. Then comment

[Drevtoobe]

You are caught in that Catch22, Ash.... A supposedly open-minded person that refuses to discuss with an open mind when he is afraid that he might hear something that he doesn't want to hear.

The clip is garbage because it is not a fair comparison. The ball rolls down the ramp and CRASHES into the car with an inelastic collision. Ball energy is LOST and gets transfered into the car frame and becomes heat. The ball is also ROLLING, some of the gravitational energy is LOST in the roll.

[Drevtoobe]

On the other hand, the ball that swings back and forth looses none of it's gravitational potential energy to inelastic collisions or transfer of forward momentun to vibrational energy in the car frame.

Therefore, an astute person looking at this clip would EXPECT the car to move further forward with the graceful low-friction low-energy-loss pendulum system.

I hope that I just opened your mind Ash, and gave you some critical thinking skills.

[ashtweth]

No i am not in a catch 22, you should of provided your "theory " beofre beating around the buish, oyou need to find out how to measure these effects your talking about, then you know your right, therefore you still need to build it and measure it. I hope this also opens up your mind. I prefer that . If the ball crashes then it is an inefficient transfer of energy. No surprises there. Build a two stage oscillator and compare. We are

[Drevtoobe]

Did you ever take a physics class Ash? When you learn things then you are supposed to go forward and apply your knowledge. That's exactly what I just did. Tell me, did you think about the energy being lost in the collision? Did you think about the fact that the GPE that was converted into angular momentum in the ball would then become heat that doesn't push the car forward? Do you agree what that assessment or not?

[ashtweth]

I agree that the way you describe is an inefficient way to transfer force , i agree that the two stage oscillator is better, but for you to understand this , you need to build one, the ponit is that it is inefficient compared to the way Milkovic does it, any one with half a brain knows that the ball /heat what ever is a LOSS. Use the other half of your brain to see that he is showing a better way to do it. Build the 2 stage and compare it, that's my advice to you.

[Drevtoobe]

Don't you need a second swinging arm for a two-stage oscillator?

My point is still valid, this is not some sort of "apples and applies" comparison clip.

If you are going to do some kind of test like this, you can look at your objective as being to turn as much of your GPE into heat in the wheel bearings and nowhere else. The swinging arm in this clip does a very good job of it.

[Techstuf]

I am kind of stunned that the research is still rocking in the cradle....Laithwaite would be mortified. lol

Not bad, but still far from the impact necessary for any meaningful change.

And even then.....

It's a jaded world these days.

[curbina]

There are many improvements one wish could be implemented in this simple experiment. It does prove IMHO the single point that the pendular movement can extract work from the "pseudoforces". The principle of conservation of energy was at first named principle of conservation of forces. That's the key. The so called pseudoforces are the key to obtain more energy from a system that is force conservative, and this is a good example.

[onthecuttingedge2005]

Automate it with servos to swing back and forth then measure the difference in energy.

good work, thanks.

[WarzSchoolchild]

VERY INTERESTING!

BRAVO! ...Veljko Milkovic, You also prove that real 'Science' can be done an a 'kitchen table'.