2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference

Pre-Register for FREE for the 2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference.

Registration Form:
Presenter Bio/Talk Descriptions:
See more
See less

Veljko Milkovic - 2 Stage Mechanical Oscillator

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So Tsiriggakis is to my understanding a previous Greek military engineer who has posted about 6 videos, one or two related to a "gearless different" he has patented which he said was based from his study of the Antikythera mechanism (I say, God rest his soul, but it is better than Tom Clancy). He has 2-3 videos for his "counter-gravity mechanism". He also has a simulation of his counter gravity mechanism flying a plane off into space. Here is an informative 1-2-3 video of his counter gravity mechanism. I'll discuss both exactly what he is doing and why I think it may work. We will reveal the secrets of the sandbox not known for the ages

    Antigravity Mechanism - - YouTube

    So we notice from from about 0.15 - 0.20 two counter rotating pendulums (which again is why I thought to look at this again). Now, and it took me a while to realize this, in this machine this motion never happens in isolation. I.e. I thought there was a motor in the center box, there isn't. You can look at the built machine working here Antigravity Mechanism - - YouTube

    Next is the second motion added, this is from 0.23 -0.30 of the video. So, if not a motor in that center box, what is it? I puzzled a long time on that. I finally got a description from a paper which I still had to learn what it meant. It is a 1:1 planetary gear 2 suns two planets with one sun locked in place. If I were a gear head, maybe I am now, I would have known to call it another name, it is a differential. I'll be honest, I basically replicated things up to here with gears from a hobby shop, enough to see that the motions were as presented but the darn gears would not stay in place. This led me to learn of "bevel gears" for right angle differentials. I thought I am going to have to go to a machine shop they will charge me a thousand dollars I don't care if it flies to Mars I want something cheap. Again it has to be a 1:1 differential, but low and behold I found that as a robot kit add on. One inch 1:1 plastic differential gears about 20 bucks, so I'll order that soon, but again I got far enough to see it is a differential driving the motion in the center, maybe I should have taken a clue from his patent.

    So what do we have now, two counter rotating pendulums which draw out a figure eight over half a hemisphere of a sphere. A paper went on to describe how this motion led to an oscillating increase and decrease in force registered on a scale. This makes sense from what I have thought about previously. Yes they are always going at the same speed, but when the two masses meet up at the top there will be an upward force, when they both hit bottom, a net downward force of the same amount. It would just want to vibrate or oscillate.

    So now we have from 0.33 to 0.40. I haven't replicated this and here is where he is either a liar or something much different. Why do I think this may work? Because I've toyed around with gyroscopes. A spinning gyroscope can sit over the end of a table without falling. He is introducing a gyroscopic or precessional aspect of motion. Now when the two weights meet at the top they are at the center of the circle of gyroscopic motion and there would be no or almost no effect. At the bottom they are at the circumference and the gyroscopic effect would be most pronounced. Bruce DePalma spoke of an anisotrophic change in mass with rotation.

    I got 90 percent through steps one and two and three seems pretty easy. Once I have beveled gears for a differential I may be able to replicate it but if I am not mistaken, Tsiriggakis, instead of employing a consistent change in velocity, has employed a consistent "anistrophic" change in mass. For me this may take weeks (hopefully not) to replicate, for you gear heads out there, it is a differential to make this motion, it may take you an afternoon or day or two. Have fun and may we all be just, peaceful and productive.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 10-07-2013, 12:27 AM.


    • #17
      Fist off, I want to apologize in that going over my previous posts as I struggled to understand things I was borderline to just plain incoherent. I will also say, as regards experimenting, I have received my bevel gears and will replicate Tsiriggakis (whether it works or not) with parts from a toy store in the next day or two (week or two?). I said a couple things earlier though that I think are likely correct and one simple one being, we don't understand circular motion. Having had time to think on all this I will present it again. I will be doing the experiments on this over the next few weeks to months and if, which I strongly suspect, this is correct it is almost too simple to mention. Before starting, let's also just ignore anything related to precession and circular motion because I don't believe it applies to these examples.

      OK, let's go! First imagine ("a bright blue ball just spinin spinin free" - sorry, Grateful Dead) a perfectly balanced rotor spinning at say 5000 rpms. Now chop off half the rotor, can it continue to spin at 5000 rpms? No. Why not? Because it is unbalanced. But what does this mean? Two forces come into play. The first is the translational force. By this I mean if one were on a railroad cart and had a 50 lb weight on a vertical rotor in the middle of the cart and picked up the weight and heaved it to the other side the cart would move in the other direction proportional to the change. (In my thoughts at least, it wouldn't matter whether you walked the weight slowly or flung it quickly, the cart would move the same amount to preserve the center of mass, and that is all - I think) The second force is the centrifugal (def: moving or tending to move away from a center) force. What Milkovic demonstrated with his pendulum cart is that the translational and centrifugal forces do not need to equal and that is significant. As we know they don't need to sum to zero let's consider the centrifugal force in more detail. Let's reduce the half rotor to a single rock on a string. It can't spin at 5000 rpms like the balanced rotor because at each point it is striving to leave the center and it pulls the fulcrum with it leading to vibration or worse.

      Now then, and here is where we get down to it, what factors affect the centrifugal motion? Well mass is obviously one, a three ounce weight won't pull outward like a 3 lb weight. The other obvious one is speed, a 10 mph rotation will pull much less than a 100 mph rotation. There you have it. In Milkovic's cart gravity pulls a weight (on an incline) so it consistently accelerates to a maximum speed at the bottom of the swing and this "drags" the cart forward (three times more than an inelastic collision per Veljko).

      The other thing I said in my previous ramblings which I would return to and I believe is obviously (how could you even patent something like this) entirely correct is "a consistent repeated push of (an unbalanced) wheel at the exact same spot" leads to a linear force. This just seems now obvious to me, and even Newtonian. What will be well worth determining, as to whether this is a hobby shop novelty or something else would be whether a stone swinging at say 10 mph at 0 degrees and 20 mph at 180 degrees behaves the same as one going 40 mph at 0 degrees and 50 mph at 180 degrees or does it follow a square law? Questions, questions, questions!
      Last edited by ZPDM; 10-12-2013, 05:12 AM.