CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Energy Efficiency double pendulum two-state oscillator

Published on February 9th, 2009 | by Timothy B. Hurst

74

2-Stage Oscillators and the Quest for "Free Energy"

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 9th, 2009 by
 

double pendulum two-state oscillator

It may not look like much, but Serbian scientist and inventor Veljko Milkovic will tell you that under ideal conditions his two-stage mechanical oscillator will produce twelve times more energy at the business end of the machine than what is required at the input side of it.

[After spending several days reading the documents and opinions, watching the videos, and making myself comfortable with the material I link to below, I was sufficiently convinced that the 2-stage oscillator was—at the very least—something CleanTechnica's readers would find interesting. I welcome your comments and critique, because that is how science progresses -TBH]

[social_buttons]

Simply put, the two-stage oscillator consists of a lever and a pendulum: two machines that perform work individually. Milkovic and others claim that when these two machines are combined, assembled with the proper weight distribution, and properly synchronized, Centrifugal and Gravitational forces operate in concert to produce energy gains bordering on the astonishing.

“This certainly ranks as one of the most important discoveries in science in the last 300 years,” said Peter Lindemann, who suggests the twelve-fold increase in power at the output end (pdf) appears to violate Newton’s Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Once the optimal speed has been reached by the swinging pendulum, Milkovic postulates that very little energy is required to maintain it.

Greatest impact could be in developing world

There have been several iterations of the Milkovic design and it is argued that the mechanism could be used in automatic hammers, transmissions, motors, pumps and more. In theory, the design could be scaled up to handle much larger amounts of energy — even utility scale.

But one of the most viable and “shovel-ready” applications of the mechanism is in manual water pumps. Widespread diffusion of appropriate technologies like Milkovic’s two-stage oscillating pump could have important implications in parts of the world where manually pumping water is a fact of daily life. (Watch a video of a water pump with two-stage oscillator).

two stage mechanical oscillator

The search for perpetual motion machines and “free energy” has occupied the minds of mechanical engineers for as long as there have been mechanical engineers. And while there have been the standard methodological challenges to the accuracy of certain measurement tools and protocols used to study the two-stage mechanical oscillator, Milkovic’s design has yet-to-be understood implications for a world with constantly-growing energy needs.

Images: VeljkoMilkovic.com

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , ,


About the Author

is the founder of ecopolitology and the executive editor at LiveOAK Media, a media network about the politics of energy and the environment, green business, cleantech, and green living. When not reading, writing, thinking or talking about environmental politics with anyone who will listen, Tim spends his time skiing in Colorado's high country, hiking with his dog, and getting dirty in his vegetable garden.



  • Wemarmar

    First I replaced gravity with two springs so I could use this device in outer space. Then I decided to harvest the swing+sling energy with a slide instead of a lever. I provided feedback to maintain swing with a simple cocked spring pusher system. I am getting about 2kw from 300lb weight. Is anyone else powering their electric car from these things??

    • MilesBennet

      It’s a year old post, but… I think this is possible (space engine) with full rotation instead of oscillation of pendulum on one side of lever. Nickel iron batteries are great to accumulate energy for home appliancie, imho.
      2kW from 300lb… Interesting. Any pics of your device? Do you use impulse charging or you have full rotation generator. Video will be appreciated, also. Thanks

  • joe

    In the olden days the TOP scientist of the day argued that if you went over 30mph on a bicycle you would suffocate. This stubborn stupidity is the same for some of you people – the term I would use is intelligently stupid.

    True Perpetual motion indeed cannot be! This device however is not a perpetual motion device. It is a gravity to ‘useful’ work converter. No laws of physics have been broken here. It is just how you have chosen to interpret the English language.

    Some may scoff but everything about the universe (planets, solar systems, galaxies) that are moving because of this force would scoff right back at you.

    To be able to understand this you are going to have to think for yourselves and not blindly follow the texts books and what you have been told lie a sheep – be an actual scientist!

    In a nutshell……

    The part of the machine doing most of the work (where the extra energy comes form) is the side with the free weight. The pendulum is mealy a switch. A small input energy is needed to keep the pendulum swinging (to counter friction).

    At rest the seesaw is balanced.

    From a basic understanding of physics you should know the pendulum virtually weighs nothing at its highest point (it is neither going up nor going down). When this happens the see saw tips to the other side (this is when you get the extra energy).

    At the pendulums lowest position it becomes heavier than the other side – due to centrifugal force. Therefore the seesaw tips back. However does not have time to completely tip as the system is re-gauged.

    Having successfully built and tested these devices myself, I can tell you that it is not as simple as the drawing would suggest. If you are attempting to reproduce the experiments you definitely need to be able to adjust your weights and timing and you also need a good and sturdy build quality.

    Have fun and may true science triumph!

    • Jasmine J. McTigue

      Bravo! What we’re seeing here is a useful exploitation of gravity and centrifugal force in a mechanical system. The energy here is no greater than the gravitational pull on the primary oscillating pendulum, said oscillation the operator maintains.

  • Walter Anderson

    This is just one of the stepping stones you are going to see in the Energy Revolution we are entering. This device will not be powering vehicles directly but I can see them as personal power stations for generating hydrogen for fuel cells. I see alot of Scoffers out there pointing fingers at this pendulum device and other devices. But this is normal, for every scientific acheivement that has changed mans life for the better there are scoffers. The more scoffers there are the more dramatic will be the effect of the device on our life. Just look back in time at the trains,planes,rockets etc. if the scoffers had their way we would still be ridding horses for our main transportation. Walt

  • Walter Anderson

    This is just one of the stepping stones you are going to see in the Energy Revolution we are entering. This device will not be powering vehicles directly but I can see them as personal power stations for generating hydrogen for fuel cells. I see alot of Scoffers out there pointing fingers at this pendulum device and other devices. But this is normal, for every scientific acheivement that has changed mans life for the better there are scoffers. The more scoffers there are the more dramatic will be the effect of the device on our life. Just look back in time at the trains,planes,rockets etc. if the scoffers had their way we would still be ridding horses for our main transportation. Walt

  • bill

    I went to his web site and watched alot of videos, it does make work alot easier. Pumping water out of the ground can be done with one finger with little effort, it looks like a great invention, it will make life easier. I can’t believe no one ever thought of this before.

  • bill

    I went to his web site and watched alot of videos, it does make work alot easier. Pumping water out of the ground can be done with one finger with little effort, it looks like a great invention, it will make life easier. I can’t believe no one ever thought of this before.

  • nix

    There is no such thing as centrifugal force.

    The term some earlier posters are looking for is centripetal.

    Basically, centrifugal force “feels” real, but isn’t.

    From wikipedia

    “Common misunderstandings

    Centripetal force should not be confused with centrifugal force. Centripetal force is a kinematic force requirement deduced as necessarily present if an object is to track an observed trajectory. It is not a kinetic force like gravity or electrical forces. Centripetal force requirements may be deduced from a trajectory in any frame of reference (although the trajectory of an object and the deduced centripetal force will vary from one frame to another). Because centripetal force is a kinematic force requirement inferred from an established trajectory, it is not used to deduce a trajectory from a physical situation. Centripetal force is therefore not included in the inventory of forces that are used in applying Newton’s second law to calculate a trajectory.

    Centrifugal force, on the other hand, is treated in a rotating frame as a kinetic force – it is part of the inventory of forces used in Newton’s second law to predict motion. Centrifugal force is a fictitious force, which arises only when motion is described or experienced in a rotating reference frame, and it does not exist in an inertial frame of reference.[4]“

  • nix

    There is no such thing as centrifugal force.

    The term some earlier posters are looking for is centripetal.

    Basically, centrifugal force “feels” real, but isn’t.

    From wikipedia

    “Common misunderstandings

    Centripetal force should not be confused with centrifugal force. Centripetal force is a kinematic force requirement deduced as necessarily present if an object is to track an observed trajectory. It is not a kinetic force like gravity or electrical forces. Centripetal force requirements may be deduced from a trajectory in any frame of reference (although the trajectory of an object and the deduced centripetal force will vary from one frame to another). Because centripetal force is a kinematic force requirement inferred from an established trajectory, it is not used to deduce a trajectory from a physical situation. Centripetal force is therefore not included in the inventory of forces that are used in applying Newton’s second law to calculate a trajectory.

    Centrifugal force, on the other hand, is treated in a rotating frame as a kinetic force – it is part of the inventory of forces used in Newton’s second law to predict motion. Centrifugal force is a fictitious force, which arises only when motion is described or experienced in a rotating reference frame, and it does not exist in an inertial frame of reference.[4]“

  • Ariel Schwartz

    @Censored – Your comments were probably accidentally caught by the spam filter – please feel free to re-post.

  • Censored

    Contrary to the addendum above, Timothy Hurst does not welcome your critique. I have made two civil comments critical of his reasoning and both were subsequently deleted. Unbelievable.

  • Censored

    Contrary to the addendum above, Timothy Hurst does not welcome your critique. I have made two civil comments critical of his reasoning and both were subsequently deleted. Unbelievable.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion Vortex

    In the video, the only energy that is being done by the machine is the production of noise and some heat. The energy required to do the work of lifting the weight is returned to the system when the weight falls.

    If you move the pedulum so it just struck the side of a metal barn, you would get a very loud noise with a modest input of force to maintain the swing.

    If you want to say, “isn’t this an interesting looking way to crack walnuts”, I might agree. If you are talking about getting more energy (not force) out that you put in, I am afraid you are confused.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion Vortex

    In the video, the only energy that is being done by the machine is the production of noise and some heat. The energy required to do the work of lifting the weight is returned to the system when the weight falls.

    If you move the pedulum so it just struck the side of a metal barn, you would get a very loud noise with a modest input of force to maintain the swing.

    If you want to say, “isn’t this an interesting looking way to crack walnuts”, I might agree. If you are talking about getting more energy (not force) out that you put in, I am afraid you are confused.

  • Tuiliq

    @timothy b hurst:

    Pasted directly from the USPTO Web site:

    What cannot be patented:

    * Laws of nature

    * Physical phenomena

    * Abstract ideas

    * Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office.

    * Inventions which are:

    * Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or

    * Offensive to public morality

    ———————-

    see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/patents.htm

    My comment:

    … any device where energy out is > 1x energy in is perpetual motion. You’d only need a daisy chain of them, each machine supplying more than its predecessor but sourcing back to a mouse in a treadwheel, to power the entire world.

    It just can’t work: the energy has to come from somewhere. You can’t get out more than you put in. You just can’t.

    Some interesting devices behave as though they are running on no energy, but they take advantage of some sort of disequilibrium: a heat gradient, a light gradient, a chemical-energy gradient, a gravity gradient … something like that. The device here just has weights flopping around in a symmetrical gravitational field: no gradient. So unless some parts are hidden, friction will cause it to run down, and it can’t do useful work.

  • Tuiliq

    @timothy b hurst:

    Pasted directly from the USPTO Web site:

    What cannot be patented:

    * Laws of nature

    * Physical phenomena

    * Abstract ideas

    * Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office.

    * Inventions which are:

    * Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or

    * Offensive to public morality

    ———————-

    see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/patents.htm

    My comment:

    … any device where energy out is > 1x energy in is perpetual motion. You’d only need a daisy chain of them, each machine supplying more than its predecessor but sourcing back to a mouse in a treadwheel, to power the entire world.

    It just can’t work: the energy has to come from somewhere. You can’t get out more than you put in. You just can’t.

    Some interesting devices behave as though they are running on no energy, but they take advantage of some sort of disequilibrium: a heat gradient, a light gradient, a chemical-energy gradient, a gravity gradient … something like that. The device here just has weights flopping around in a symmetrical gravitational field: no gradient. So unless some parts are hidden, friction will cause it to run down, and it can’t do useful work.

  • justwatching

    If it works every handyman on the planet will have one working in less than 6 months. Otherwise it is just so much junk.

  • justwatching

    If it works every handyman on the planet will have one working in less than 6 months. Otherwise it is just so much junk.

  • Snerdguy

    Didn’t Yogi Berra say something like, “It ain’t so until it’s so.” Let me know when it is.

  • Snerdguy

    Didn’t Yogi Berra say something like, “It ain’t so until it’s so.” Let me know when it is.

  • John

    Wow, I’m surprised how angry/insulted some of the readers are here. I wonder why that is??? Hmm.

  • John

    Wow, I’m surprised how angry/insulted some of the readers are here. I wonder why that is??? Hmm.

  • Dorp

    Thanks for this post. I have tried to see what kind of technology this is and how it works.

    Later I see the most of the comments are stating that free energy or perpetuum mobile isn’t possible, but there are few comments considering the technology itself and how it really works.

    I guess Timothy B. Hurst wanted to pay attention on this exactly and to present this new mechanical assembly.

    I have understood this as very small input was needed to keep the pendulum swinging and much bigger output was performed on the business end of this machine.

    I have watched this demonstration where guy was lifting heavy weight with small input provided by a hand push: * note: he is using short end of the lever to lift the weight up not longer like in leverage!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8

  • Dorp

    Thanks for this post. I have tried to see what kind of technology this is and how it works.

    Later I see the most of the comments are stating that free energy or perpetuum mobile isn’t possible, but there are few comments considering the technology itself and how it really works.

    I guess Timothy B. Hurst wanted to pay attention on this exactly and to present this new mechanical assembly.

    I have understood this as very small input was needed to keep the pendulum swinging and much bigger output was performed on the business end of this machine.

    I have watched this demonstration where guy was lifting heavy weight with small input provided by a hand push: * note: he is using short end of the lever to lift the weight up not longer like in leverage!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8

  • http://redgreenandblue.org Timothy B. Hurst

    Tulliq- Great comment! Tell me more about this US Patent Office ban on such devices. Being a policy guy, you’ve piqued my interest.

  • http://redgreenandblue.org Timothy B. Hurst

    Tulliq- Great comment! Tell me more about this US Patent Office ban on such devices. Being a policy guy, you’ve piqued my interest.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion Vortex

    I agree with most of the posters. My first reaction was “aw shucks, now I am going to need to unsubscribe to the RSS feed”.

    It is interesting how seductive this stuff is to some people. I understand the even Leonardo da Vinci made a number of drawings of things he hoped would make energy for free. But I think he got over it.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion Vortex

    I agree with most of the posters. My first reaction was “aw shucks, now I am going to need to unsubscribe to the RSS feed”.

    It is interesting how seductive this stuff is to some people. I understand the even Leonardo da Vinci made a number of drawings of things he hoped would make energy for free. But I think he got over it.

  • Dennis

    I’m on the fence here. Not about the perpetual motion machine, that’s bunk. I’m on the fence about deleting my bookmark to this site. I can find random junk lots of places. I read this site because you select *good* stories to show me. After this I’m not sure that’s the case.

  • Dennis

    I’m on the fence here. Not about the perpetual motion machine, that’s bunk. I’m on the fence about deleting my bookmark to this site. I can find random junk lots of places. I read this site because you select *good* stories to show me. After this I’m not sure that’s the case.

  • Tuiliq

    I’m an entrepreneur-in-residence at a technology incubator, and working on my PhD in physics at the same time. My job is to help inventors turn their ideas into companies.

    I see a two or three of these types of devices a year. The last one was remarkably similar to this diagram here; slightly different orientation but identical physics.

    When the inventors for these things come in, I pull a $1000 cheque out of my desk, which I keep there for just this purpose. I propose a simple falsification test, and offer to endorse it if the inventor can pass this simple test (the test will vary depending on the specific mechanical characteristics of the device). I place no time limit on the offer, and ask for nothing in return except for a demonstration in which I control the energy inputs and outputs.

    Once you remove all the batteries and little “boosts” from external inputs (little pushes here and shoves there), the machines all stop: they are unable to overcome even the internal friction of their bearings. Usually, a simple flywheel will outperform them.

    After four years and about a dozen similar inventions, I still have my money.

    Without exception, the inventors are well-meaning, earnest men (no women so far!) who have overlooked a small thing or two quite by accident, usually out of excitement over the potential of their idea.

    The real output of devices like this isn’t energy: it’s quite often a disastrous trail of friends and relatives who have been convinced to put their money into the scheme. I count my day as a success if I can convince the inventor not to mortgage the family home or spend his wife’s pension. Sometimes, I’m too late, and that’s a real tragedy.

    Occasionally, one of these devices is good enough to draw funds from outside the family-and-friends circle. So far, I haven’t had a client who attempts to do this, but I’ve been to more than one splashy gravity/eccentric/pendulum/magnet/ZPE presentation where the sole goal is simply to raise money…evidently perpetually…from small groups ill-prepared to spot the problem with the idea. The inventors are to a man still quite sincere, quite convinced that they are “almost there” in their development path.

    But I have yet to see anything remotely like this that produces anything but human sorrow.

    The US Patent Office agrees. They will no longer entertain any application from a device that multiplies energy.

  • Tuiliq

    I’m an entrepreneur-in-residence at a technology incubator, and working on my PhD in physics at the same time. My job is to help inventors turn their ideas into companies.

    I see a two or three of these types of devices a year. The last one was remarkably similar to this diagram here; slightly different orientation but identical physics.

    When the inventors for these things come in, I pull a $1000 cheque out of my desk, which I keep there for just this purpose. I propose a simple falsification test, and offer to endorse it if the inventor can pass this simple test (the test will vary depending on the specific mechanical characteristics of the device). I place no time limit on the offer, and ask for nothing in return except for a demonstration in which I control the energy inputs and outputs.

    Once you remove all the batteries and little “boosts” from external inputs (little pushes here and shoves there), the machines all stop: they are unable to overcome even the internal friction of their bearings. Usually, a simple flywheel will outperform them.

    After four years and about a dozen similar inventions, I still have my money.

    Without exception, the inventors are well-meaning, earnest men (no women so far!) who have overlooked a small thing or two quite by accident, usually out of excitement over the potential of their idea.

    The real output of devices like this isn’t energy: it’s quite often a disastrous trail of friends and relatives who have been convinced to put their money into the scheme. I count my day as a success if I can convince the inventor not to mortgage the family home or spend his wife’s pension. Sometimes, I’m too late, and that’s a real tragedy.

    Occasionally, one of these devices is good enough to draw funds from outside the family-and-friends circle. So far, I haven’t had a client who attempts to do this, but I’ve been to more than one splashy gravity/eccentric/pendulum/magnet/ZPE presentation where the sole goal is simply to raise money…evidently perpetually…from small groups ill-prepared to spot the problem with the idea. The inventors are to a man still quite sincere, quite convinced that they are “almost there” in their development path.

    But I have yet to see anything remotely like this that produces anything but human sorrow.

    The US Patent Office agrees. They will no longer entertain any application from a device that multiplies energy.

  • Adam

    Let’s also note that the video is from 2004… no more breakthroughs since then!?…

  • Adam

    Let’s also note that the video is from 2004… no more breakthroughs since then!?…

  • Adam

    “Force != energy” sums it up pretty well. There are multiple forces at work here too, the hand pushing the pendulum is NOT the only force being exerted. Gravity is present, and I’m sure friction has been greatly reduced in the mechanism of the pump itself.

    It’s a great way to do minimal work and get max output (like using pulley systems!). However, this isn’t giving us access to “free” energy, and as soon as someone states it is, they are discredited scientifically (as they usually should be).

    I’m all for exploring this further. Let’s not forget that the greatest scientific breakthroughs all met widespread resistance from the scientific community at large. A discovery isn’t about obeying laws, it’s about breaking them!

  • Adam

    “Force != energy” sums it up pretty well. There are multiple forces at work here too, the hand pushing the pendulum is NOT the only force being exerted. Gravity is present, and I’m sure friction has been greatly reduced in the mechanism of the pump itself.

    It’s a great way to do minimal work and get max output (like using pulley systems!). However, this isn’t giving us access to “free” energy, and as soon as someone states it is, they are discredited scientifically (as they usually should be).

    I’m all for exploring this further. Let’s not forget that the greatest scientific breakthroughs all met widespread resistance from the scientific community at large. A discovery isn’t about obeying laws, it’s about breaking them!

  • http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/ Alastair Carnegie

    As Cambridge University are celebrating 800 Years 1209 to 2009, I am sure D.A.M.T.P. will be evaluating these claims with the customary impartiality. It always helps to ‘think out of the box’, What? one might ask, would be the heaviest pendulum that a normal person could oscillate? I guess ten tonnes is perfectly possible. A wrecker ball is from 4.5 to 6.0 tonnes. Perhaps later this year we can arrange for a public demonstration of a 5 tonne wrecker ball, oscillating in a Non-Linear Dynamic arrangement, as exemplified by Veljko Milkovic’s aparatus? or even more simple experiment; just insert a shock-absorber and suspension spring, encased in a suitable calorimeter, into the wrecker ball cable, then measure the heat generated, over a given time span of oscillations. The input energy can be measured with a small electro-magnet/string attachment and falling weight over a pulley, in honour of James Prescott Joule, who’s paper was rejected by the Royal Society, but fortunately accepted at good old Cambridge University. BRAVO! 800 Years! (Also 300 Years for The Saint Paul’s Institute…maybe make those pendulums, into large bells?)

  • http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/ Alastair Carnegie

    As Cambridge University are celebrating 800 Years 1209 to 2009, I am sure D.A.M.T.P. will be evaluating these claims with the customary impartiality. It always helps to ‘think out of the box’, What? one might ask, would be the heaviest pendulum that a normal person could oscillate? I guess ten tonnes is perfectly possible. A wrecker ball is from 4.5 to 6.0 tonnes. Perhaps later this year we can arrange for a public demonstration of a 5 tonne wrecker ball, oscillating in a Non-Linear Dynamic arrangement, as exemplified by Veljko Milkovic’s aparatus? or even more simple experiment; just insert a shock-absorber and suspension spring, encased in a suitable calorimeter, into the wrecker ball cable, then measure the heat generated, over a given time span of oscillations. The input energy can be measured with a small electro-magnet/string attachment and falling weight over a pulley, in honour of James Prescott Joule, who’s paper was rejected by the Royal Society, but fortunately accepted at good old Cambridge University. BRAVO! 800 Years! (Also 300 Years for The Saint Paul’s Institute…maybe make those pendulums, into large bells?)

  • http://redgreenandblue.org Timothy B. Hurst

    Michael-

    Thanks for your comments. I was as incredulous as you are about this whole thing – especially with the claims of a twelve-fold amplification.

    There is another paper which I didn’t link to in the post that measured an amplification of roughly 2.3 times( http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Bebic_Precise_input-output_energy_measurement.pdf ).

    I implore anyone who has links to any peer-reviewed, published work that either supports or refutes these claims, to please leave them here.

  • http://redgreenandblue.org Timothy B. Hurst

    Michael-

    Thanks for your comments. I was as incredulous as you are about this whole thing – especially with the claims of a twelve-fold amplification.

    There is another paper which I didn’t link to in the post that measured an amplification of roughly 2.3 times( http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Jovan_Bebic_Precise_input-output_energy_measurement.pdf ).

    I implore anyone who has links to any peer-reviewed, published work that either supports or refutes these claims, to please leave them here.

  • Michael

    Tim,

    Unfortunately, the claim is that the energy input is magnified 12-fold to produce the energy output. This claim is a violation of the law of conservation of energy in the same way as perpetual motion devices.

    I’ve now watched the video, and I agree that it does, indeed, pump water, but it certainly can not magnify the energy input twelve-fold.

    Further, the pdf you link to discussing the device as one of the most important discoveries of the last 300 years is written by Peter Lindemann, who operates the freeenergy.ws website, and lists no university as his alma matter. I hardly think he counts as a scientist.

    Fact of the matter is, that energy output comes from somewhere. You can not retrieve more energy out than you put into the system. This fundamentally derives from the homogeneity of time–that the laws of physics were the same yesterday as they are today.

    So, I urge you to consider more carefully how you word articles in the future. This *is* interesting. I’ve never seen parametric resonance applied to pumping water, and it will certainly make me think about things in a different manner. It is not, however, a free energy source that produces 12 times as much energy out as you put in. There also is not “little argument that Milkovic’s design represents an important scientific breakthrough with yet-to-be understood implications for a world with constantly-growing energy needs.”

    It is clever engineering and misunderstood physics. It is not free energy.

    For what it’s worth, my degree in physics comes from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

  • Michael

    Tim,

    Unfortunately, the claim is that the energy input is magnified 12-fold to produce the energy output. This claim is a violation of the law of conservation of energy in the same way as perpetual motion devices.

    I’ve now watched the video, and I agree that it does, indeed, pump water, but it certainly can not magnify the energy input twelve-fold.

    Further, the pdf you link to discussing the device as one of the most important discoveries of the last 300 years is written by Peter Lindemann, who operates the freeenergy.ws website, and lists no university as his alma matter. I hardly think he counts as a scientist.

    Fact of the matter is, that energy output comes from somewhere. You can not retrieve more energy out than you put into the system. This fundamentally derives from the homogeneity of time–that the laws of physics were the same yesterday as they are today.

    So, I urge you to consider more carefully how you word articles in the future. This *is* interesting. I’ve never seen parametric resonance applied to pumping water, and it will certainly make me think about things in a different manner. It is not, however, a free energy source that produces 12 times as much energy out as you put in. There also is not “little argument that Milkovic’s design represents an important scientific breakthrough with yet-to-be understood implications for a world with constantly-growing energy needs.”

    It is clever engineering and misunderstood physics. It is not free energy.

    For what it’s worth, my degree in physics comes from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

  • David Diez

    So it violates the conservation of energy? Apparently I should be taking the articles published here less seriously…

  • David Diez

    So it violates the conservation of energy? Apparently I should be taking the articles published here less seriously…

  • http://redgreenandblue.org Timothy B. Hurst

    The world is flat! The world is flat!

    At no point in the article do I, or any of the scientists I quote, claim that this is a perpetual motion machine. Looking at the animation only, I can understand why you might have that impression. What is not conveyed in the animation is that work needs to be performed to keep the pendulum swinging (the animation is, perhaps, misleading in that respect).

    All I request is that you watch some of the videos and explores some of the docs I linked to in the post and open yourself up to the very *possibility* that this machine and its concomitant energy gain is plausible.

  • http://redgreenandblue.org Timothy B. Hurst

    The world is flat! The world is flat!

    At no point in the article do I, or any of the scientists I quote, claim that this is a perpetual motion machine. Looking at the animation only, I can understand why you might have that impression. What is not conveyed in the animation is that work needs to be performed to keep the pendulum swinging (the animation is, perhaps, misleading in that respect).

    All I request is that you watch some of the videos and explores some of the docs I linked to in the post and open yourself up to the very *possibility* that this machine and its concomitant energy gain is plausible.

  • libra58

    No science, sham only.

  • Martin

    Wow … this is not even wrong … this is total bullshit ! :-) This is hilarious… people should study their physics basic concepts before posting crap like that !

  • Martin

    Wow … this is not even wrong … this is total bullshit ! :-) This is hilarious… people should study their physics basic concepts before posting crap like that !

  • Gustavo Merchan

    Oh no!

    Force does not equal Work (or Energy)

    Author should fail his first physics course for this.

  • Gustavo Merchan

    Oh no!

    Force does not equal Work (or Energy)

    Author should fail his first physics course for this.

  • Jason A

    I thought this blog had some credibility. At no point do they offer any science or even any question of the claims made by Milkovic. Is this an early april fools article or what?

  • Jason A

    I thought this blog had some credibility. At no point do they offer any science or even any question of the claims made by Milkovic. Is this an early april fools article or what?

  • Michael

    Guys… this is just a simple example of parametric resonance. No fancy new science to be found, and certainly no violation of newton’s laws. Like any other resonance phenomena, energy is stored over time in the resonant oscillation rather than being dissipated through processes. So, after several periods of the input, the output *is* exhibiting greater energy than is contained within any individual input period, because it’s been storing the energy from all of those input periods. Net energy in, however, still equals net energy out, at best.

  • Michael

    Guys… this is just a simple example of parametric resonance. No fancy new science to be found, and certainly no violation of newton’s laws. Like any other resonance phenomena, energy is stored over time in the resonant oscillation rather than being dissipated through processes. So, after several periods of the input, the output *is* exhibiting greater energy than is contained within any individual input period, because it’s been storing the energy from all of those input periods. Net energy in, however, still equals net energy out, at best.

  • wictor

    yeah, I really used to liked this site, but this article dissapoints me. The article shoud be tagged as ‘pathological’ science. Centrifugal force and homogenous gravitational field NEVER produce energy. Btw. this “discovery” is one of dozen at New energy congress – a pathological science site.

  • wictor

    yeah, I really used to liked this site, but this article dissapoints me. The article shoud be tagged as ‘pathological’ science. Centrifugal force and homogenous gravitational field NEVER produce energy. Btw. this “discovery” is one of dozen at New energy congress – a pathological science site.

  • Mike Isgood

    I’ve looked at the device and have concluded it works.

    For those who doubt, remember there is much we do not know about inertia, zero point energy and why all heavenly bodies are spherical in shape, v.s. say square or cone shaped…. sic.

  • Mike Isgood

    I’ve looked at the device and have concluded it works.

    For those who doubt, remember there is much we do not know about inertia, zero point energy and why all heavenly bodies are spherical in shape, v.s. say square or cone shaped…. sic.

  • http://www.free-energy.ws Peter Lindemann

    The mechanism is simple and ingenious. I have been to Serbia, visited with Veljko, and seen his machines with my own eyes!

    In short, no single motion, taken by itself, violates Newton’s Third Law. It is the complex interaction that creates the apparent “de-coupling” of forces in the aggregate. In this way, the force vector in the machine providing the “work” stroke is applied against the force vector produced by the centrifugal force provided by the SWING of the pendulum. The energy extracted by the “work” stroke does not damp the swing of the pendulum DIRECTLY, but only provides the equivalent of a “parasitic oscillation” (a small displacement of the pivot point) that damps the pendulum INDIRECTLY, and only partially. Since the the “input” to the system is merely to keep the pendulum swinging, most of this energy is conserved, while the centrifugal force produced by the swing does all the work at the “output” end.

    Believe what you will, but the machine behaves as reported by Mr. Hurst.

  • http://www.free-energy.ws Peter Lindemann

    The mechanism is simple and ingenious. I have been to Serbia, visited with Veljko, and seen his machines with my own eyes!

    In short, no single motion, taken by itself, violates Newton’s Third Law. It is the complex interaction that creates the apparent “de-coupling” of forces in the aggregate. In this way, the force vector in the machine providing the “work” stroke is applied against the force vector produced by the centrifugal force provided by the SWING of the pendulum. The energy extracted by the “work” stroke does not damp the swing of the pendulum DIRECTLY, but only provides the equivalent of a “parasitic oscillation” (a small displacement of the pivot point) that damps the pendulum INDIRECTLY, and only partially. Since the the “input” to the system is merely to keep the pendulum swinging, most of this energy is conserved, while the centrifugal force produced by the swing does all the work at the “output” end.

    Believe what you will, but the machine behaves as reported by Mr. Hurst.

  • Roddy

    It’s disappointing that CleanTechnica includes an author who would report, with such breathless enthusiasm, yet another device that violates the First Law of thermo. Shouldn’t he give scientific/engineering claims at least a basic check, or even recognize the problem himself? “This certainly ranks as one of the most important discoveries in science in the last 300 years” and it doesn’t occur to him to run it past an independent expert?

    Yes, this makes me question whether this site as a whole has any credibility. Evidently they’ll publish any claim, no matter how bogus. Pity, that.

  • Roddy

    It’s disappointing that CleanTechnica includes an author who would report, with such breathless enthusiasm, yet another device that violates the First Law of thermo. Shouldn’t he give scientific/engineering claims at least a basic check, or even recognize the problem himself? “This certainly ranks as one of the most important discoveries in science in the last 300 years” and it doesn’t occur to him to run it past an independent expert?

    Yes, this makes me question whether this site as a whole has any credibility. Evidently they’ll publish any claim, no matter how bogus. Pity, that.

  • Colin Bent

    I find myself not entirely convinced by a man who wrote this .

  • Colin Bent

    I find myself not entirely convinced by a man who wrote this .

  • Sam

    Force != Energy

    Is it better than breaking your back over a standard lever pump? Probably.

    Is it free energy? No.

  • Sam

    Force != Energy

    Is it better than breaking your back over a standard lever pump? Probably.

    Is it free energy? No.

  • http://islandinthenet.com Khürt

    Sham science.

  • http://islandinthenet.com Khürt

    Sham science.

  • Come on…

    Just when this site starts looking credible, you go and publish a story like this. What’s next, crystal pyramids? There are plenty of places on the web to go find crap like this for those who are interested — this shouldn’t be one of them.

  • Come on…

    Just when this site starts looking credible, you go and publish a story like this. What’s next, crystal pyramids? There are plenty of places on the web to go find crap like this for those who are interested — this shouldn’t be one of them.

  • anonymous

    It’s a perpetual motion machine. It can’t possibly work.

    That doesn’t stop people from making impossible claims every now and then, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen.

  • anonymous

    It’s a perpetual motion machine. It can’t possibly work.

    That doesn’t stop people from making impossible claims every now and then, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen.

Back to Top ↑