see the comments under the video: i asked some questions:
I'd say this needs a new thread.
1 day ago
Good video and Info, I have found that in the 2 stage oscillator once the small weight starts to lift the other side the small up and down motion counter acts the small input needed. I could never get any of my attempts keep going. It always counteracted it's self. I found this to be very true. I also found that once going and starting to do work it is doing more than put in but only for a short period. I'm guessing this system will do the same. The fact that each has a degree of freedom will counter act the Input. Either way... It's a good idea to try. By looking at it it looks good so now only tests will tell. By the way. Have you finished the test? Dose it indeed work? Or is this just unfinished testing? So others can also find the flaw on there own? Thanks, ~Russ
1 day ago
My video here explains the same reason why you cannot try to close the loop on the Veljko Oscillator - to do so, you cut out gravity and you make the output proportional to the input and it will die down. Leave it open loop...then for each mechanical input on the pendulum, you get a multiplied amount of work at the hammer. That is the whole point. So many people think they need to close the loop to get overunity, but that is misinformation - to do so cuts out the free energy.
16 hours ago (edited)
+Aaron Murakami no, no, i completely agree with you on not closing the loop. i never implied closing the loop. what i said was that on the 2 stage oscillator once the heavy second stage starts to move it changes the standard arc swing path of the smaller first stage to a up and down + arc path and it drastically effects the momentum the smaller weight has from the small push it needs to keep going. it creates a totally differently ark pattern, this change in its arc kills the effect. like your elliptical path. it would be the equivalent to changing the elliptical path in such a way that it counter acts what the bigger weight is doing. any how back to the first 3 questions: 1.Have you finished the test? 2.Dose it indeed work,Or is this just unfinished testing? 3.So others can also find the flaw on there own? im not trying to pick your work apart. im trying to find out where you stand on the subject. i'v been reading the forum too.. you can answer there if you want... Thanks, ~Russ
14 hours ago
Hi Russ - I have done some tests, but I am not finished. There is more I want to do. The results I have are positive - it appears to be doing what is claimed. I have a clumsy setup and it is not 1200%, but there does appear to be a gain. I don't think there is a flaw in it at this time. I'm looking for a few ways to simply the upper parts, but with my renewed interest in this machine, I think I'm going to go back to the original replication. I don't know if I can do this before the conference but if I can, I'd like to bring it out for people to see.