Announcement

**ZPDM** · 10-14-2012, 09:44 AM

I am either lazy or busy, but seeing as Admin posted this I have to ask if anyone in the admin group, or anyone else here, has put a magnet at the bottom of the swinging pendulum and a bifilar coil (etc.) underneath the magnet?? The change in the height of the swing of the pendulum might make it a poor candidate for a Bedini-pulse motor type approach, then again, maybe not.

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-14-2012, 06:43 PM

I should have posted it from my personal account.

Anyway, yes, there have been quite a few. Marty from the other forum I think was one of the first.
You can see quite a few here:

youtube milkovic bedini - YouTube

**gsdf** · 10-27-2012, 09:46 AM

Hello everyone.
I saw this Press with a pendulum and magnets (MP-14/01) on Veljko Milkovic official site
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images...ti/Patent6.jpg

I find it very interesting and I propose new name - Magnetic gravity hybrid.
The use of it can be manifold (electric generators, pump, etc.).
The device has a good combination of gravity force, centrifugal force and permanent magnets so it makes large density of energy, but the device remain the same size as the one without magnets in pendulum.

**ZPDM** · 08-24-2013, 02:07 PM

I took a little time to read some of the work on Velko Milkovic's site and there is a young scientist there, Jovan Marjanovic M.Sc., who has done a great deal of mathematical analysis and thinking on the matter. I have looked at the few youtube videos there are of replications in this area and they don't seem to be at all taking into account what Jovan has noted. So I will try and distill what I think he is saying, which, while this topic actually may end up quite complicated, is pretty straightforward, but first some background.

The two stage oscillator, as best I can figure, is a gravity motor. I don't know where the useful energy comes from, which is quite odd to say as you can see the whole thing working. Is this related to inertia, some sort of gyroscopic precession, Jovan describes it as centrifugal force and notes this must be maintained for maximal efficiency. As an aside, I'm not sure if Jovan was aware in writing this of Victor Schauberger's thoughts on centrifugal motion. All that aside, let's get to what at least in my interpretation applies practically.

To do this we only need to define two terms. First, if we look back at the animated gif at the top of this page we see that the pendulum is swinging on the right side of a lever. As it swing this lever moves up and down. The vertical motion (in the gravitational field) of this lever, to keep Jovan's terminology, will be called delta r. As the pendulum swings it is affected in turn by delta r. That is to say for the amount of up and down vertical sway the pendulum is no longer moving in a circular motion it is moving in a straight or translational motion. After glancing at Jovan's math and reading his report of experimental results, consternating intently, I have come to the conclusion, "straight BAD, circle GOOD". So if we accept the reported results how do we decrease delta r, i.e. how much the side of the lever with the pendulum attached is swinging? A couple ways, first would be to make that side of the seesaw shorter. This would make the other side of the lever swing more widely though with less force. Second, and this is a takehome message if I am correct, make the pendulum longer. If the arc carved out by the pendulum is five feet versus five inches, the delta r of, say five inches, will have a much different effect on the pendulum and the circular motion. Put simply delta r is resistance. We could reduce it to zero but then no work is being done by the pendulum, i.e. the lever doesn't move.

The next term is critical angle. By this is meant at what angle of the pendulum swing (as it becomes more powerful with larger swings) does the opposite side of the lever begin to move. The critical angle increases as greater weight or resistance is added to the opposite side. Before the critical angle is reached the pendulum swings freely, like a grandfather's clock, but does not allow for useful work from the other end of the lever. When the critical angle is surpassed there are three resistances that I can think of, 1) the air resistance, always present 2) the resistance in the bearings always present and 3) delta r which is another word for the swinging of the seesaw. A small delta r is efficient and might be exploited through proper gearing or other means.

To be silly, it is almost (alright nothing like) Isaac Newton is on one end of the pendulum. He can't directly enforce his law, all he can do is increase (with increasing resistance) the critical angle before the pendulum moves the lever. In this way the weight of the pendulum needs to be raised further before the lever moves. Whether the swinging weight (is it resonant with the gravitational field?) continues to follow Newton may be worth looking into. In summary, long pendulum, weight on the bottom, GOOD. I haven't seen it in the replications, but then again apparently Velko came up with this at age five so maybe Jovan and his math are all wrong.

**Aaron Murakami** · 08-25-2013, 10:07 PM

When I came to the realization that there is no such thing as "storing potential", then literally 100% of every gravitational effect made sense in terms of gravity being used as potential that can and will do work.

This oscillator is absolutely gravity powered. Anytime a weight lifts up against gravity and hits the peak, 100% of every bit of potential energy that was used to do work to do that lift is 100% dissipated at the peak of the lift. There is zero potential stored int he big hammer when it is at the peak. What there is - is a potential difference, gradient, dipole or whatever you want to call it.

When the hammer is at the peak, no potential is stored, but MGH still accurately describes how much gravitational potential will come into the system to do work if and when the hammer is released to fall back down. It doesn't give up anything that was put into it, what we get out of what we put into it IS the lift in and of itself of the hammer. When released, that potential difference (weight at a height in our gravity) will be able to enter the system and impart a push on the hammer when it falls and hits a resistance (anvil) - meaning that NEW potential energy came into the system from gravity - it is not from us storing anything there. What we put in is completely gone. That means that gravity can do work and the entire concept of "storing potential" is a farce to hide the fact that gravity can do work and that Einstein is wrong.

Look what you put into the small pendulum. Then add up the force x distance of the hammer each time it goes up and it is more than what we put into the small pendulum. Where the energy comes from is gravitational potential itself.

With the mention of Newton - Newton's Cradle violates all conventional thermodynamic models.

There is no such thing as conservation of momentum or conservation of energy.

When we lift the ball on one end of Newton's Cradle, all the energy required to lift that ball is 100% dissipated by the very lift in and of itself. When it gets to the peak at 90 degrees or however high we lift it, there is NOTHING left from what we put in and NOTHING is stored in that ball. Gravitational potential is live and streaming nonstop - we don't need to store anything, we just have to create potential differences (dipole) to tap it on each cycle (regauging).

When we let the ball go, it comes down and hits the other balls, minus the impact dissipation and falling resistances, the difference is how much lift the ball at the other end will go up. No momentum is conserved - that whole concept is a fraud. When the other ball goes to its peak, there is no more momentum when it comes to a stop right before it falls and 100% of every bit of input to that ball is completely dissipated. (no conservation of energy or momentum). That ball simply established a new dipole or potential difference so NEW gravitational potential comes in and pushes the ball down, etc... and repeat with each diminishing amount of losses until they come to a stop.

So no momentum is conserved and either is energy - each cycle there is dissipation and the system is setup so that each cycle, it renews its own dipole (regauging) with complete dissipation on each cycle (which just created a new dipole - smaller each time, but new nonetheless).

Veljko's oscillator is the same and so is every single mechanical amplifier that is over 1.0 COP, the Bedini SG works the exact same way, etc...

There is only input and full dissipation while creating a dipole. New environmental input comes in does work (with losses) to create a new dipole (smaller each time if no further input), dissipation and new dipole created. Seeing it for what it is takes away all the mystery from non-equilibrium systems. This is the only way nature has ever worked and it is empirically verifiable. Doing the actual math by cumulatively adding all the work on each cycle (each regauging cycle) shows this reality.

I recently had the chance to spend quite a bit of time with Eric Dollard over the last couple months off and on and discussed some of what I'm talking about here and he put the lifting work into his own mathematical expression and verified that it is indeed in the dimension of energy. That means for example that when a ball is bounced in the upward direction after being dropped initially, it is not just reactive power (ball lifting) - it is actual energy being dissipated. If you lift an object with a lever, you create heat at the fulcrum, etc... In any case, what I just shared about all of this is mathematically verifiable with elementary school math and junior high school equations.

**ZPDM** · 09-04-2013, 11:31 PM

Aaron,

There is a really, really interesting video by Velko Milkovic, I will link to it below and now describe why I find it so interesting. It is an extremely simple experiment. There is a cart with a tilted roof attached to it. A steel ball is rolled down the roof, hits a barrier at the bottom of the tilted roof and the cart moves forward. Next the same steel ball is attached to a swivel arm from the center of the roof of the cart forming a pendulum. The ball is now dropped from the pendulum and Mr. Milkovic demonstrates that the cart moves over three times as far as when there was an (essentially) inelastic collision from the steel ball. However, it was not until quite recently that I comprehended the full import of this. Leaving aside the difference between the pendulum and an inelastic collision, the cart can't move at all from the pendulum, at least per Newton, it should simply oscillate back and forth with zero change in the center of mass. How do I explain what I am thinking... the system is self-contained, the ball is dropped swings on the pendulum, !around a fixed pivot point on the cart! and the cart moves. It is self-contained. If the cart moves at all, as was demonstrated, this, it doesn't imply, it means, that if one were in space and waved one's arms faster in one direction then the other one would move. It is a self-contained system, this demonstrates massless propulsion. Anyone got a better explanation? Oh and don't forget we can check out your BS in the equivalent of a kindergarten sandbox.

I like these gravity related experiments with big steel balls. We can't "see" the force of gravity any more then electricity or magnetism but I suspect if we can comprehend it a bit more it has parallels in other forces, and we are much more used to experiencing the effects of gravity. We don't understand or have a physics for circular motion, forget reinventing the wheel, we don't understand the wheel.

Lastly, I slowed the video down to frame-by-frame to try and observe just what the heck is going on. One thing I would note is that if you look at one full almost 360 degree swing of the pendulum and stop it there, you find that at that exact point the cart has moved forward approximately the same distance as the total distance the cart moved when impacted by the free rolling steel ball in an inelastic collision. The ball, however, is only about 1/8 or less down the slope. Not sure exactly (alright, alright, I'm exactly sure) what that means for free energy, a pendulum with one swing moves a cart the same distance as a rolling ball striking with an inelastic collision though it ends up only having traveled 1/8 of the way down the same hill.

Here is the very "simple" video. Superiority of Pendulum Drive - Potential Energy to Kinetic Energy - YouTube

**ZPDM** · 09-08-2013, 02:30 AM

I apologize that I am not doing any experimenting at this moment, hopefully soon, however, I just want to say a few more things about Dr. Milkovic's experiment and why I find it so thought provoking/confusing or whatever. In the example where he drops the ball on the pendulum there is a fixed pivot point attached to the cart. I would at first glance think this would be analogous to someone in track shoes, translating, walking, a weight from one end of the cart to the other. Or one could think of a small tank with tank treads on the cart moving to the other end. As the cart is free to roll the cart should move backwards against the tank or person walking to the other end the center of mass remaining motionless. So the measured back-end of the cart should actually move backwards when the mass of the ball is translated forwards, this is often seen and one can just think of walking on a skateboard to see what I am saying. At the same time there is force caused by the ball moving downhill, as was seen in the rolling ball experiment. This force is also present with the pendulum and as a guess out of my elbow I figured they would cancel out, the cart would not move and the ball would end up on the other end of the cart with the cart oscillating until it came to rest. Again there is a fixed pivot point to the pendulum and you are (translating? - well the end result at least) a mass against a fixed point. Anyhow, when I looked at it frame by frame, from memory, here is what I saw.

The cart stayed still until the pendulum had swung about 75 degrees and moved backwards then. It moved backwards a total of 3-4 cm between 75 and 170 degrees. At about 10 cm before bottom dead center it started to move forward. This motion accelerated as the mass translated back in the other direction. As noted earlier after one full swing of the pendulum the cart had moved forward approximately 10 cm, or the same distance as when the full potential energy (negating friction from the rolling ball and inelastic behavior from the cart) rolled down the hill, but at this point the ball is only 1/8 or less down the hill. I don't know but I do have to greatly wonder whether part of the behavior of the cart was secondary to precessional force. There is also the translational force as defined earlier and the "pull" of the swinging weight analogous to the impact of the rolling ball.

Again I have done no experiments on this or lately, howeva, given this experiment and the two stage oscillator, it would seem to me that perhaps all pendulums are "overunity". It is just a matter of what does want as useful work. If one wanted for instance to watch a ten ton weight swing up and down this could happen with a pendulum. If one wanted to make it do something else (is the first "overunity"?) then how does one do that? One way would be a two stage oscillator, there will be tradeoffs as I discussed earlier, one more that occurred to me later is that as you lengthen the pendulum arm the period of rotation will increase, however, one should be able to get "useful" work from the pendulum. Another way might be say, putting a large, large magnet on a pendulum and letting gravity do the majority of the work of "rotation" against the resistance of a coil. Oh gee, where did I see someone already do this and make a video showing it?? (I think you can guess).

Now if you complete the circle (not even to think at this moment of vortices) there is additional behavior to consider (though also present with the pendulum). Both Laithwaite and DePalma had great difficulty in describing what they were noting experimentally. They spoke of different planes or anisotropic mass and struggled with the notion of frame of reference. In any event, I think if we can look at some of these things in the very macroscopic and dealing with the commonly encountered force of gravity it may help us to understand a lot. Already with the idea of Dr. Milkovic's two stage oscillator we can see the importance of Q factor in how such a machine will behave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTMY...layer_embedded

Lastly, please pray to God for peace in the middle east and Syria, we are an offensive enough lot without starting wars and this one doesn't look good. If we will just unite as humanity and say enough, no more, it can go well. As Paul McCartney well said, "when the broken hearted people living in the world agree."

**ZPDM** · 09-13-2013, 09:24 PM

Was trying to get some sleep and I just kept going over this video again in my head
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTMY...layer_embedded
I finally realize I am going to have to do a few experiments this week-end

I've said a lot about this video but I'll say just a bit more. In trying to figure this out one thing that occurred to me would be what would happen if you rotated the pendulum by 90 degrees? That is to say the ball now starts high up in the air and swings entirely vertically first forwards and downwards, then downwards etc. (like a child's swing) Again this week-end for experiments but I'm pretty darn sure the cart isn't going to have any net movement, it will be all Newton. So what is different between when the plane of rotation is perfectly vertical to gravity versus when it is at an oblique to gravity. Two things, I'll mention the one I think is not very significant first.

When, as in Velko's video the pendulum is at an oblique there is a force of gravity acting as a torque on the rotating ball, if it were a balanced wheel all the torques would balance out but it is not a balanced wheel. When a torque acts on a rotating object there is precession. No one seems to know next to anything about precession and I'm not the exception, while I can't see how there isn't going to be a precessional force I don't know if it would try to flip the cart sideways, drive it sideways, flip it front to back or vice versa or drive it forward or backward. One thing I do know about precession from fiddling with gyroscopes is it is a directional force, by this I mean if you have a torque applied to a gyro spinning clockwise there is a precession in a particular direction. You apply the exact same torque to the gyro spinning counterclockwise and the precessional force is in the opposite direction. What this means practically is that if precession does play a significant part in the behavior of the cart's movement there is a really easy way to check, let the ball fall in the other direction and see if the cart moves a different length. I doubt there will be much if any difference.

Now for what I suspect is the very important difference. If the pendulum is perfectly vertical the maximum speed of rotation will be bottom dead center and act to try and drive the cart into the ground. Even if the ball is pushed from a different starting point the force of gravity will act symmetrically at all points of rotation and never in a way to impart directionality (aside from Newtonian preserving the center of mass if you say flipped the ball from one side of the cart to the other). However, and this I think is important. When the pendulum is on the oblique, again the maximum velocity is reached at bottom dead center however, the ball now has two vectors of motion, one downwards and the other pushing forwards. Put simply the ball isn't just falling down now, it is falling forwards. That forward vector is straining like a hammer thrower's hammer or David's slingshot to move outwards and if the speed of rotation is consistently greatest at one point on the circle there will be net motion, just as Dr. Milkovic demonstrated. You can also note in the video that as the swings of the pendulum become symmetrical on each side the cart no longer moves, just rocks back and forth.

So what does this mean? To summarize it to make use of this form of non-reactive propulsion one probably just needs two elements 1) an unbalanced wheel 2) a consistent repeated push of the wheel at the exact same spot. You know how I know this works, I had a Bedini pulse motor going where I superglued four magnets to the periphery of a CD. One of them flew off without my knowing and I spent half a minute trying to figure out why the whole machine suddenly kept trying to vibrate across the table top (good case for protective eyewear as well). So that's what this week-end is about, glue one magnet to a CD, put the rotor, coil, reed switch for simplicity and 9V battery on a cart and fire her up. Haven't done it yet but I won't be surprised if the cart goes tooling around the table top.

**ZPDM** · 09-21-2013, 04:56 AM

Alright I'm monopolizing this thread, see if I care ... er, anyone out there? The initial experiment didn't go well, but considering my toy store cart and the weak pulse motor I am not surprised, I am convinced, basically certain, my reasoning is correct. Think of a stone you are swinging with a sling, it pulls your arm where the stone is swinging fastest, am I wrong? That's the whole shebang. I then thought of a more simple verification. If one slows down Dr. Milkovik's video to frame by frame (unless he is some sort of Peter Jackson CGI god) you see both that the pendulum moves the cart much further than an inelastic collision (let's leave the implications there for another time) and that after one complete swing (look at it maybe I'm nuts) the cart has moved forward about the same amount as from an inelastic collision, though the ball is only 1/8th down the incline at that time.

So what if you just stopped the experiment after one swing and moved the ball the 1/8th back up the hill and started over again. We would need a force like gravity but going the other way, oh magnetism, aside from the wind is there another macroscopic force that would do? So how do you pulse it through that 1/8 uphill? You likely don't want to use a sensor coil as it will be dependent on magnet velocity, but you could certainly use a reed switch. There would be some new movement in the system but I would bet that the majority of what you would be doing is resetting the system. So this is what I will try and do, I'm sure the cart will rock back and forth (even without resetting it can be seen to do this from the video) but it just may move forward, persistently.

Dr. Milkovik was nice enough to get back to me after I commented on his video and what he said that caught my attention was that he is using flexible pendulums for linear motion (he has videos). If you think of it a flexible pendulum should have slow motion initially then fast motion at the point where the pendulum is fully stretched out. Again, one consistent point on a circle where angular momentum is greatest leads to a linear force. I don't even think there is anything non-Newtonian about it.

So, if my experiment works it would be a gravity assist cart, but what about if you didn't want to worry about gravity, how could you mimic the acceleration/deceleration effect gravity exerts on an inclined pendulum. Well, on a rolling cart you could have on one side say four or five coils, triggered by a reed switch. These would accelerate a magnetic ball on a pendulum from 0-180 degrees after 180 degrees have four five coils decelerate the ball. Put 12 volts on the acceleration and 11 on the deceleration so you have rotation and you are left with a single consistent point on the circle where angular momentum is greatest. Sure there are effects related to precession and maybe other stuff we haven't even seen yet, but I say this works for linear force from rotation, when I think of a ball on a string, why wouldn't it?

**ZPDM** · 09-27-2013, 02:04 AM

A brief update. I replicated the cart Veljko shows in his video with 20 bucks of parts from a toy store. It behaves the exact same, the effect is anything but subtle. It doesn't follow Newton. One thing you don't get from Veljko's video is there is a great propensity for the cart to also turn in the direction of rotation of the pendulum. I.e if the pendulum were making fullcircle rotations the cart would basically just turn in the direction of the pendulum rotation. As this "toy" defies conventional physics I'll not be too embarrassed to say, apart from friction in the bearings (which must be too small), looking at the various velocities on the swing path, etc. etc, I don't know why this is, but it is. Before going on I will first describe cart Mark 1.0. If a swing of the pendulum drives the cart forward, as I have seen, then one could extrapolate that (with perfectly frictionless bearings) a Grandfathers clock tilted on a dolly would rock forward each swing. So 1.0 is Grandfather's clock cart. How to pulse the pendulum? Initially I wanted to put it at the top (motionless part of each swing). A sensor coil wouldn't work there because it would pull the magnet up (causing a full rotation swing - too much torque and carts swings off path) and/or would repulse on the wrong side of the coil. So I said I'll use a reed switch. I'm an idiot. You can't use a reed switch near an electromagnet as eventually occurred to me. You could extend out your pendulum and use the 180 degrees opposite side but then you are starting to balance the wheel and lose your effect, it might be made to work but I decided to do something which has been done to death by people on this forum. Pulse the pendulum at the bottom of the swing. There will be some change to rotational dynamics but the pulse is in a good place (if my understanding is correct) and most of the swing will likely still be dictated by gravity. The electromagnet at the bottom front of the cart should help dampen out the torque that wants to turn the cart as well. So that's 1.0, it ain't complicated, pulse an inclined pendulum and from what I've seen from dropping an inclined pendulum, the cart should putt, putt, putt forward (How you like them apples Newt?)

Next is to cancel the torque problem, Now again, this is all Veljko as he mentions how to do this, you just want a contra rotating second pendulum at the same time, like two contra rotating propellers on an airplane. How to do this, how to do this, I though a long time on it, finally it occurred to me you just need a single one-to-one gear between two identical pendulums. Now you should have cancelled the torque problem. This is Mark 2.0 and where things may get interesting. Now you can have full circle rotations and only the linear force component remains. What happens as you increase rpms? I have no idea! Before going on again my theory is that the consistent difference in angular momentum at a consistent single point on rotation is what accounts for the seen linear force. So there are a number of options. 1) the "duty cycle" remains consistent, the difference in velocity between slow and fast points is unchanged, there is no increase in linear force dependent on rpms. 2) The linear force increases as a linear function of the "pulse" rate, the rpms. 3) And this is the one I am actually even a bit frightened is likely correct, while the difference between the slow point and the fast point on the circle remain consistent, the linear force seen is dependent on the square of the velocity. For example, let's take the case where the pendulum does not complete a full rotation, let's say it is at 1 mph at it's fastest and 0 then at it's slowest. Now with full rotations the "pendulum" may be say at 10 mph at its slowest and 11 mph at its fastest. Will it follow a square law? Mass and velocity do this in many other things, as I said almost scary to me. So that is Mark 2.0 and I may or may not have a video there.

Mark 3.0. If my assumptions on what is going on holds, at least partially, oh and Veljko mentioned you might try this, why not mimic the effects of the gravitational field. No longer incline the pendulum, but now have on one side of a circle electromagnets triggered to attract and accelerate a mass, on the other side to decelerate the mass, exactly as would be seen with a pendulum on an incline. If Mark 2.0 goes well, this could be an interesting experiment. N'est pas? Could be gathering some inductive spikes along the way as well. For some reason I want to break into a Gollum imitation now, "Oh yes Precious, inductive spikes, very nice Precious very nice indeed." Anyways, I don't think I may not be wrong here, and if so it is both simple and powerful.

Ciao, talk at you later

Paul

**Nofear** · 09-27-2013, 03:54 AM

Hey,Paul.
Only testing will tell. So many great ideas look good on paper until...
I am glad you're taking the time to explore these pendulum driven machines. check youtube channels there's some interesting (crazy) contraption to be inspired by.
Keep up the good work
NoFear

**ZPDM** · 09-27-2013, 04:56 AM

Hey NoFear,

Thanks for the encouragement and I agree with you 100 percent. Look at Dr. Milkovic's video on the cart, despite its simplicity or because of it it takes a while to sink in.

**ZPDM** · 09-30-2013, 04:19 AM

A "brief" update. I am making great progress and will post a video of the grandfather's clock go-cart in the very near future. The problem I am running into is that as the magnetic pendulum is swinging relatively slowly I either need a heck of a lot of turns on the sensor coil and/or a Darlington pair to boost the signal. I'll probably work on both solutions. Relatively speaking I am still dmn fing inept at electronics. I have a hobby article on how to build a magnetic pendulum and if need be I will drop everything and build everything exactly to that spec (I built it previously but dismantled it, didn't know I might need it in future). There is much broader applicability to the concepts Veljko lays out but I want to start at square one. I'll make a video of that, maybe not of square two, this simplicity is absurd. Amazingly none of this even touches on precession. I said earlier we don't understand circular motion. The following occurred to me today, below is a link of various people doing the hammer throw. While I am not looking to generate discussion, I would say in light of Newton's laws does anything seem off to you? Hint, how is the hammer thrower still standing, or, let's suppose the hammer thrower is in space. Having just recently occurred to me I know I should do the big humble pie of maybe this maybe that, but no, I don't see it, I see a big heavy f'ing hammer that just went 200 feet in one direction. Do you see what's wrong with this picture? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw

**ZPDM** · 10-06-2013, 11:14 PM

I worked on a different project for awhile, but this week will go back, time permitting, to the Grandfather's clock gocart as I wait for other parts which I will detail in a moment. Not to be a broken record but I will express this in one more way. And again I find nothing non-Newtonian here. Consider a slingshot with a stone as you swing it in a circle with a pivot at your wrist, as you pick up speed your wrist no longer wants to stay immobile, your wrist wants to move in a circle with a stronger immobile pivot point set at your elbow by stronger muscles in your arms. Why? because at each point on the rotation the sling rock is straining to leave. If you had a large enough rock or fast enough rotation your elbow would not do either, and you would need to be like the hammer throwers using legs and back to maintain a pivot. If the hammer thrower loses balance or sprains his leg is he expected to fall away from the hammer, no the hammer would pull him over on his face at the point of lost balance. It follows straightforwardly from here (and I have to think in complete accord with Newton) if you had a hammer thrower on a cart, where on one half of his rotation the hammer goes 1 mph (if that is enough to counter gravity) and let's be absurd on the other half 100 mph there would be a net linear force to move the cart.

Now then there is another force at play as well, that is as the hammer moves around the fixed pivot point there is a translational force, per Newton attempting to keep the center of gravity in one place. However, as Dr. Milkovic pointed out to us with his inclined pendulum these two forces do not need to sum to zero. I built his cart, it is subtle, if the floor is 2 percent off the cart will rock backwards, but on a level surface the centripetal force focused on one point by gravity overwhelms the translational force. And if I am correct, err. if, ah hell I'm correct we just need to build it, we know where to increase and where to decrease angular momentum, one can augment what Veljko showed. There is also a torque which wants to spin the cart and one wants two contra rotating pendulums (propellers) to eliminate this. Uh lastly if the cart accelerates this would deform the circular motion of the pendulum, no idea how it fits in, but it is still a fun toy.

So now I get to why I wrote. Someone on this board or maybe energetic forum mentioned Tsigrakigakiakis (sorry "Tsiriggakis") to me. When I first looked at his work I thought, well I don't know maybe he's right, but it sure would make a great disco ball. I am pretty to more than pretty sure he's right now and he is either a genius or an alien or an alien/genius but I suspect he is another scientific hero of mine because how in heaven did he come up with this. He released this around 2009 I think but most of the links are now dead (ooh must be a fraud) I was able to find a paper or two discussing this in English which detailed what he was doing. I will present this now as a discussion of one of his videos, ah heck I'll break this up into two posts as if someone isn't interested this is a good quit point, but as a teaser, he doesn't use differences in rotational velocity.

Announcement

Veljko Milkovic - 2 Stage Mechanical Oscillator

Veljko Milkovic - 2 Stage Mechanical Oscillator

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment