OK now make the larger weight a large coil of copper wire and have it swing between two magnets, see if it generates enough electricity to drive the hydrolic piston !? Apart from that this thing looks really inefficient, lol. You could just move the piston and have the piston raise the smaller weight LOL.
Nelle intenzioni dell'inventore Milkovic, il doppio pendolo avrebbe un'efficienza superiore al 100%; in realtà quando abbiamo messo una piccola dinamo collegata ad una lampadina, il pendolo quando andava sotto sforzo perdeva parecchia potenza che ci faceva capire (anche senza misurazioni di energia in entrata ed energia in uscita) che il sistema era inefficiente. Per tale motivo non siamo più andati avanti perchè scoraggiati.
@ZoeMarks ~The purpose of this experiment is to measure the forces and also 'work done' at the input and output stages. Check out the 'origin' of the so-called "First Law of Thermodynamics" on the Johann Bessler website. Hermann Helmholtz based it on the 'axiomatic' presumtion (axiom = no proof required) that over-unity is impossible. Therefore to use the First Law to disprove over-unity is a 'circulus in probando' logical falacy... A vicious circle of error! Science is "astute observation"
@WarzSchoolchild - except of course no one has ever demonstrated a working example of a device that breaks the "first law". The device in this video doesn't demonstrate the first law being broken. It does show that proponents of this device don't know how to measure input and output power as they all incorrectly assume the weight being lifted (and the distance involved) is somehow the output. A good example of the untrained arriving at erroneous conclusions.
@ZoeMarks ~ Your comment:- " no one has ever demonstrated a working example..." is incorrect. Please go to wwwDOTbesslerwheelDOTcom Johan Bessler (Orffyreus Perpetuum Mobile) Then read up on "Conservation of Momentum" & "Pendulum Mechanics". If you do the mathematics, it's simple to see why Dr. Hermann Helmholtz was wrong to assert on purely 'axiomatic' (Axiom = Presumed Correct) grounds that over-unity was impossible. The foundation of his argument was the same as yours, and he forgot Bessler!
@WarzSchoolchild - I repeat - no one has demonstrated example as there was no scientific proof. Where was the independent testing and the scientific explanation of the workings? None of that exists. The lack of any real evidence and the failure of anyone to repeat the trick is enough to convince any rational person it never worked. Cite a paper that provides the math supporting the working machine. There isn't any for a very sound reason. Like the pendulum in the video - no free energy.
@ZoeMarks ~ Gottfried Liebniz wrote about Johann Bessler's Wheel in 1714:- ""Orffyreus is a friend of mine, and he allowed me, some time ago, to carry out some experiments with his machine. It ran continuously for two hours in my presence and demonstrated considerable power. There is something extraordinary about Orffyreus' machine and we must not ignore it, because it could bring tremendous benefits."
Liebniz of Calculus fame, may have read "Bhaskara" who also demonstrated a PM Wheel.
@WarzSchoolchild - finding an article that appears to undermine the first law is such a pointless thing to do. There are no reputable papers published anywhere in the world that successfully challenge the the law. The phenomenon defined by the law is testable and repeatable so any inference of it being flawed is down to a poor understanding of physics or a lack of general education.
@ZoeMarks ~ May I suggest you mark your Diary for June 6th next year, that will be the 300th aniversary of Johann Bessler's famous wheel. attested to by both Gottfried Liebniz (Calculus) and Isaac Newton. We are not exactly sure how his wheel operated, but are now busy making fully working replicas. We would be happy to send you working drawings for a little one made with coins and two CDs. Details published closer to the date. We hope every schoolroom will get involved! Cheers from D.A.M.T.P.
@WarzSchoolchild - you need to read up on the history from reliable sources. Supposedly only one person was allowed to the workings in detail and it wasn't Liebniz or Newton. Wiki and free energy websites are not a source of anything reliable as self interested and unscientific folks populate them with biased opinions. You are confusing people looking at the machine with someone testing it. Post a working version for us all to see.
@ZoeMarks ~ If you have two carboys, one upright, the other inverted, two rubber bungs each with two holes, some flexible hose, and glass tubes, It is possible to have a perpetual fountain from the second 'upturned' carboy back to the first. If water is used, the fountain will only last a day or two, because dissolved oxygen upsets the balance of liquids, but if a 'non-drying' oil (olive oil) is used, the fountain will keep going for years. This is fact, and invite you to check it out yourself.
@WarzSchoolchild - send me a link to some proof. I don't really see what point you're making as it won't be perpetual motion no matter what method is used. If you can provide details I will provide the reasoning why it won't work.
@Nabo00o Consider that if instead of using weights to balance a Milkovic device to obtain resonance you simply put a closed loop hydraulic system. One without a pump. Simply two cylinders connected together and connected to the power side of the lever. Use the cylinders to power the feedback loop and then do the final balancing act with weights. You now have a closed loop and a means by which you can transfer all or part of the power to where you need it... and it should be in balance as well.
I could be completely wrong.. but.. (and no offense) I think you have it all wrong unless I am underestimate the mass on the "business end" The beauty in Milkovics pendulum is to upset the balance of a very massive beam. You've got all your mass in the pendulum. The BEAM should be the heavy part and then the bob can lighten, thus reduce power in vs. power out
@Nabo00o the way I see it hydraulics... is the means by which mechanical energy can best be transferred from one place to another. Air is compressible and therefore you have losses. Hydraulics exerts equal force in all directions and if properly designed is the perfect mechanism to feed back a given motion. Put a hydraulic cylinder on the work end of things (The end with the rack gears) and route it to another cylinder which will be your feedback cylinder.
Well I think hydraulics has it problems too. The biggest being that it has a lot of mass that needs to be moved, while air doesn't suffer that much even though tightly compressed. Its inertia becomes apparent when you want to push things fast and get a fast response, like in this situation.
A three inch cylinder will push a one inch cylinder three times as fast and still have the same power per area ratio from one side to the other. Just as you can use weight to balance the Milkovic device you could use the resistance of the hydraulic system in combination with shortening or lengthening the lever to achieve this balance. When you have achieved this balance the trick is to feed the power back.
@mdlarouche You could use a closed loop system with no reservoir or external hydraulic pump actuated with solenoid directional control valves. With one hydraulic cylinder attached to the power end as I said ...The lever is acting as your pump. Two cylinders connected in this fashion acts like your typical bottle jack. If you still need to get more speed then
@mdlarouche I suppose you attach another lever at the end of the second cylinder to obtain that but I think the way I described it could do the trick... and there are minimal moving parts and no need to add another device like a motor to compress air. In my opinion you might be able to get it going with air if done correctly but the whole idea of making this work at all would be to do it from within.
Respond to this video... I had to break that up a little due to size if you read from the third post at the bottom upward that's the way it should be read... They should make it so the postings are in order...!
Is it self sustainable ? (because I don't see the pressure pomp who feeds that pneumatic piston..).
Recovering the extra-energy : I remember that professor Milkovic invented this pendulum system because it is so much better (transfering momentum) than the gears... and yet you are using them at the end!
PLEASE invent something else, much smoother to recover those BIG impulses.. (like a pendulum :)
Just thinking of improvements... (1) An electromagnetic rail gun for the pendulum would make it more silent. (2) Optical sensors to determine the optimal firing time for the rail gun. (3) A way to instantly break and stop the pendulum (for safety reasons).
I was thinking, the output wheel should now be attached to a spring loaded gear, sort of like you would find in a wind up toy... The greater the resistance on the wind up spring, the greater the resistance on the second stage fulcrum to rock, to the point where it does not rock at all, and the greater the efficiency of the pendulum.
Uma observação, devido á inércia no contra peso o rendimento desta réplica do Milkovis´s fica prejudicado. Exixtem diversas outras opções e uma delas seria colocar este contra peso para se movimentar defasado do pendulo ou substitui-lo por molas. O ponto de maior força sobre o balanço é na posição vertical da haste do pendulo devido a sua energia centrífuga e como o contra peso demora para entar em movimento o pendulo passa a funcionar atrasado.
OK now make the larger weight a large coil of copper wire and have it swing between two magnets, see if it generates enough electricity to drive the hydrolic piston !? Apart from that this thing looks really inefficient, lol. You could just move the piston and have the piston raise the smaller weight LOL.
MattBlytheTheOne 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ila67ful
Nelle intenzioni dell'inventore Milkovic, il doppio pendolo avrebbe un'efficienza superiore al 100%; in realtà quando abbiamo messo una piccola dinamo collegata ad una lampadina, il pendolo quando andava sotto sforzo perdeva parecchia potenza che ci faceva capire (anche senza misurazioni di energia in entrata ed energia in uscita) che il sistema era inefficiente. Per tale motivo non siamo più andati avanti perchè scoraggiati.
Ciao.
ila67ful 5 months ago
Ragazzi ho sentito che parlate italiano, ma a cosa dovrebbe servire la vostra invenzione?
vikintosh 5 months ago
How come none of these self run? Oh that's right, those silly laws of physics...LOL
ZoeMarks 6 months ago
@ZoeMarks ~The purpose of this experiment is to measure the forces and also 'work done' at the input and output stages. Check out the 'origin' of the so-called "First Law of Thermodynamics" on the Johann Bessler website. Hermann Helmholtz based it on the 'axiomatic' presumtion (axiom = no proof required) that over-unity is impossible. Therefore to use the First Law to disprove over-unity is a 'circulus in probando' logical falacy... A vicious circle of error! Science is "astute observation"
WarzSchoolchild 5 months ago
@WarzSchoolchild - except of course no one has ever demonstrated a working example of a device that breaks the "first law". The device in this video doesn't demonstrate the first law being broken. It does show that proponents of this device don't know how to measure input and output power as they all incorrectly assume the weight being lifted (and the distance involved) is somehow the output. A good example of the untrained arriving at erroneous conclusions.
ZoeMarks 5 months ago
@ZoeMarks ~ Your comment:- " no one has ever demonstrated a working example..." is incorrect. Please go to wwwDOTbesslerwheelDOTcom Johan Bessler (Orffyreus Perpetuum Mobile) Then read up on "Conservation of Momentum" & "Pendulum Mechanics". If you do the mathematics, it's simple to see why Dr. Hermann Helmholtz was wrong to assert on purely 'axiomatic' (Axiom = Presumed Correct) grounds that over-unity was impossible. The foundation of his argument was the same as yours, and he forgot Bessler!
WarzSchoolchild 4 months ago
@WarzSchoolchild - I repeat - no one has demonstrated example as there was no scientific proof. Where was the independent testing and the scientific explanation of the workings? None of that exists. The lack of any real evidence and the failure of anyone to repeat the trick is enough to convince any rational person it never worked. Cite a paper that provides the math supporting the working machine. There isn't any for a very sound reason. Like the pendulum in the video - no free energy.
ZoeMarks 4 months ago
@ZoeMarks ~ Gottfried Liebniz wrote about Johann Bessler's Wheel in 1714:- ""Orffyreus is a friend of mine, and he allowed me, some time ago, to carry out some experiments with his machine. It ran continuously for two hours in my presence and demonstrated considerable power. There is something extraordinary about Orffyreus' machine and we must not ignore it, because it could bring tremendous benefits."
Liebniz of Calculus fame, may have read "Bhaskara" who also demonstrated a PM Wheel.
WarzSchoolchild 4 months ago
@WarzSchoolchild - finding an article that appears to undermine the first law is such a pointless thing to do. There are no reputable papers published anywhere in the world that successfully challenge the the law. The phenomenon defined by the law is testable and repeatable so any inference of it being flawed is down to a poor understanding of physics or a lack of general education.
ZoeMarks 5 months ago
@ZoeMarks ~ May I suggest you mark your Diary for June 6th next year, that will be the 300th aniversary of Johann Bessler's famous wheel. attested to by both Gottfried Liebniz (Calculus) and Isaac Newton. We are not exactly sure how his wheel operated, but are now busy making fully working replicas. We would be happy to send you working drawings for a little one made with coins and two CDs. Details published closer to the date. We hope every schoolroom will get involved! Cheers from D.A.M.T.P.
WarzSchoolchild 4 months ago
@WarzSchoolchild - you need to read up on the history from reliable sources. Supposedly only one person was allowed to the workings in detail and it wasn't Liebniz or Newton. Wiki and free energy websites are not a source of anything reliable as self interested and unscientific folks populate them with biased opinions. You are confusing people looking at the machine with someone testing it. Post a working version for us all to see.
ZoeMarks 4 months ago
@ZoeMarks ~ If you have two carboys, one upright, the other inverted, two rubber bungs each with two holes, some flexible hose, and glass tubes, It is possible to have a perpetual fountain from the second 'upturned' carboy back to the first. If water is used, the fountain will only last a day or two, because dissolved oxygen upsets the balance of liquids, but if a 'non-drying' oil (olive oil) is used, the fountain will keep going for years. This is fact, and invite you to check it out yourself.
WarzSchoolchild 4 months ago
@WarzSchoolchild - send me a link to some proof. I don't really see what point you're making as it won't be perpetual motion no matter what method is used. If you can provide details I will provide the reasoning why it won't work.
ZoeMarks 4 months ago
usporava.
krajnjikorisnik 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nabo00o Consider that if instead of using weights to balance a Milkovic device to obtain resonance you simply put a closed loop hydraulic system. One without a pump. Simply two cylinders connected together and connected to the power side of the lever. Use the cylinders to power the feedback loop and then do the final balancing act with weights. You now have a closed loop and a means by which you can transfer all or part of the power to where you need it... and it should be in balance as well.
mdlarouche 8 months ago
I could be completely wrong.. but.. (and no offense) I think you have it all wrong unless I am underestimate the mass on the "business end" The beauty in Milkovics pendulum is to upset the balance of a very massive beam. You've got all your mass in the pendulum. The BEAM should be the heavy part and then the bob can lighten, thus reduce power in vs. power out
KyleCarrington 1 year ago
Very, impressing work!! When u will finish this!? And is it gonna produce electricity or ....cant wait to see when is done!!
TheNeiskorisceni 1 year ago
Very, very impressing indeed!
Compressed air is very well suited for this kind of system. It can be generated and used without too much problems...
Another piston, plus a reservoir/safety-valve, could make feedback possible, and practical.
Nabo00o 1 year ago
@Nabo00o the way I see it hydraulics... is the means by which mechanical energy can best be transferred from one place to another. Air is compressible and therefore you have losses. Hydraulics exerts equal force in all directions and if properly designed is the perfect mechanism to feed back a given motion. Put a hydraulic cylinder on the work end of things (The end with the rack gears) and route it to another cylinder which will be your feedback cylinder.
mdlarouche 10 months ago
@mdlarouche
Well I think hydraulics has it problems too. The biggest being that it has a lot of mass that needs to be moved, while air doesn't suffer that much even though tightly compressed. Its inertia becomes apparent when you want to push things fast and get a fast response, like in this situation.
Nabo00o 10 months ago
A three inch cylinder will push a one inch cylinder three times as fast and still have the same power per area ratio from one side to the other. Just as you can use weight to balance the Milkovic device you could use the resistance of the hydraulic system in combination with shortening or lengthening the lever to achieve this balance. When you have achieved this balance the trick is to feed the power back.
mdlarouche 10 months ago
Comment removed
mdlarouche 8 months ago
@mdlarouche You could use a closed loop system with no reservoir or external hydraulic pump actuated with solenoid directional control valves. With one hydraulic cylinder attached to the power end as I said ...The lever is acting as your pump. Two cylinders connected in this fashion acts like your typical bottle jack. If you still need to get more speed then
mdlarouche 10 months ago
@mdlarouche I suppose you attach another lever at the end of the second cylinder to obtain that but I think the way I described it could do the trick... and there are minimal moving parts and no need to add another device like a motor to compress air. In my opinion you might be able to get it going with air if done correctly but the whole idea of making this work at all would be to do it from within.
mdlarouche 10 months ago
Respond to this video... I had to break that up a little due to size if you read from the third post at the bottom upward that's the way it should be read... They should make it so the postings are in order...!
mdlarouche 10 months ago
Not a self-runner. He clearly shows an extension chord going to the pneumatic mechanism....but a good start.
shubus 1 year ago
Is it self sustainable ? (because I don't see the pressure pomp who feeds that pneumatic piston..).
Recovering the extra-energy : I remember that professor Milkovic invented this pendulum system because it is so much better (transfering momentum) than the gears... and yet you are using them at the end!
PLEASE invent something else, much smoother to recover those BIG impulses.. (like a pendulum :)
Congratulations!
bravo
How about
marestejar 1 year ago
Just thinking of improvements... (1) An electromagnetic rail gun for the pendulum would make it more silent. (2) Optical sensors to determine the optimal firing time for the rail gun. (3) A way to instantly break and stop the pendulum (for safety reasons).
MagnaMoRo 1 year ago
I was thinking, the output wheel should now be attached to a spring loaded gear, sort of like you would find in a wind up toy... The greater the resistance on the wind up spring, the greater the resistance on the second stage fulcrum to rock, to the point where it does not rock at all, and the greater the efficiency of the pendulum.
MagnaMoRo 1 year ago
Bravo, bravíssimo!!!!
Muito bom!!!
Uma observação, devido á inércia no contra peso o rendimento desta réplica do Milkovis´s fica prejudicado. Exixtem diversas outras opções e uma delas seria colocar este contra peso para se movimentar defasado do pendulo ou substitui-lo por molas. O ponto de maior força sobre o balanço é na posição vertical da haste do pendulo devido a sua energia centrífuga e como o contra peso demora para entar em movimento o pendulo passa a funcionar atrasado.
Danielgeniomg 1 year ago
Complimenti!
alessiof76 1 year ago