Proving the Secondary Oscillation Mechanical Amplification Effect
Brian Berrett’s various test rigs demonstrate the gain derived in the
secondary mechanical movement of a lever attached to a primary pendulum
oscillator -- mechanical ‘overunity’ -- validating Veljko Milkovic’s
Brian Berrett converts pendulum action in the
wheel on the right, into up-and-down lever motion, which causes the wheel
on the left to spin via the ratcheting mechanism inherent in the bicycle
mechanism. The batteries, in this case, are merely being used as
weights to hold the platform more steady.
LEHI, UTAH, USA -- On March 7, I went to Brian Berrett’s home to see his
experimental work replicating the Serbian inventor, Veljko Milkovic’s
groundbreaking postulates about the approximate twelve-fold magnification of
mechanical force in secondary oscillations compared to the energy required to
maintain a primary pendulum oscillation.
Brian has devised a number of different methods to demonstrate various key
aspects of the principle, which Peter Lindemann has said to be perhaps the most
monumental scientific breakthrough in gravitational and inertial science since
If proven true, the secondary oscillation gain principle opens a near infinite
number of mechanisms by which prime motive energy could be freely derived from
gravity and inertia – something that current models of physics would say is
The essence of Milkovic’s model involves a primary pendulum, whose swinging
motion creates a secondary, up-and-down oscillation force from the point at
which the pendulum arm is suspended. If that suspension point is on a lever,
rather than a fixed point, then the up-and-down force results in and up-and-down
force on the lever.
According to Milkovic, the amount of energy derived in the lever can be many
times more than the amount of energy required to keep the primary pendulum
Milkovic has demonstrated this in a number of different ways. Perhaps the most
convincing visual demonstration uses a hand-pump flashlight, in which each
contraction of the hand produces a brief impulse of light that lasts as long as
the handle contraction is taking place.
Flashlight Demo(5 seconds)
Brian Berrett demonstrates the same kind of flashlight as is used by
Veljko Milkovic in his secondary oscillator mechanical amplification
The light fluoresces with each compression of the handle.
Milkovic places twelve such flashlights on the lever end of the system, which
all fluoresce brightly each time the lever goes up and down. Then, on the input
side, Milkovic holds one pump flashlight in his hand, by which he pushes the
primary pendulum to keep it swinging back and forth. That flashlight lights
dimly with each push.
One consideration that needs to be factored in calculating input versus
output net energy is the duration involved. The lever-induced force tends to be
of shorter duration than the input force.
Brian’s several mockups demonstrate various elements of this principle, and
serve to prove the underlying premise of mechanical gain. His mock-ups are not
yet perfected to the point in which the gains can be precisely measured, but
they do give a rough approximation that is sufficient to prove the point.
The first mockup that Brian demonstrated to me was just a simple pendulum on a
lever, with no load or restraint on the lever, other than simple friction in its
pivot action. The pendulum is made via a weight at the bottom of a bicycle
wheel, whose axle is attached to a metallic frame that comprises the lever
aspect. The purpose of this mock-up is to show that the secondary oscillation
movement of the lever is purely random. Brian says that this is one action that
mathematicians have not been able to predict through any kind of formula.
Oscillations Purely Random (6 seconds)
Mockup demonstrates purely random movement stemming from a simple
pendulum on a lever, with no load or restraint on the lever, other
than simple friction in its pivot action. The pendulum is made via a
weight at the bottom of a bicycle wheel, whose axle is attached to a
metallic frame that comprises the lever aspect.
Brian speculates that this purely random relationship may be one of the
reasons why this amplification works.
Another principle that can be demonstrated with this simple mockup is that while
motion in the primary pendulum incites movement/force in the secondary lever
action, the opposite does not hold true. Movements in the secondary lever do not
transmute into mirror image movement in the primary pendulum. The secondary
lever could be pulsed up and down in such a way as to keep the primary pendulum
in motion, but that would be a special case, and would not be the same
relationship of motion as is seen when the primary pendulum is kept in motion
through some other input.
Based on input from Milkovic, Brian has also shown that if a weight of the same
magnitude is placed on the opposite extreme end of the secondary lever, that the
up-and-down force created by the swinging of the primary pendulum is optimized.
The up-and-down force is not as great if the weight in that position is less or
more than the weight in the primary pendulum.
Addition of weights on right increases
the up-and-down force as the pendulum weight oscillates on the left.
We nominally quantified this later with another mockup (explained below).
The next mock-up had the secondary lever held stationary on a bathroom scale,
via an adjustable, long bolt, so that there was no free up-and-down action, but
the up-and-down force was transmitted directly to the bathroom scale.
Note edge of white bathroom scale under
the board on the left. Note the small cable protruding from
the pendulum weights on the bottom right. The purple wheel in
the background is irrelevant to this set-up, which is situated on
top of a table saw. The board fastened to the back frame
behind where the bike seat would be situated, is for mounting a coil
to electronically power the pendulum action of the back tire.
As the weight on the right swings back and forth, it creates
secondary up-and-down motion that is transferred to the bathroom
The object here was to document how much force is required to keep the
primary pendulum in motion, and compare that to the secondary lever force being
pressed onto the bathroom scale.
A fish scale attached to a small cable fastened to the pendulum weight was used
to quantify the input force required to keep the primary pendulum in motion. I
purposely tried to keep the durations of pulling as short as possible; knowing
that a longer duration of pulling would log a smaller registered force on the
fish scale, and the long duration of pulling would have to be multiplied by the
force measured to get a net force number (actually, a rigorous measurement and
calculation would involve integration over a curve comprised of the force over
time). The fish scale read approximately one pound of input force required to
keep the primary pendulum in motion.
The increments on the scale are by one
pound. The marker is moved a distance corresponding to one
pound of displacement.
Meanwhile, the reading on the bathroom scale was bouncing between zero and
ten pounds with each oscillation of the secondary lever.
This roughly demonstrates a one pound input being leveraged into a 10 pound
Next, Brian added weights to the lever over the bathroom scale so that there was
as much weight there as there was on the primary pendulum weight.
The number of 1.25 lb weights over the
bathroom scale match the number of weights suspended from the back
wheel for the primary pendulum.
The input force remained at around one pound, to keep the primary pendulum
swinging, but the bathroom scale was now bouncing between around seven and
twenty pounds. (The lower number was not carefully observed.)
In other words, adding the corresponding weight to the output end of the lever
significantly increased the force output. We did not attempt at that time to
quantify lesser or greater weights than that, but Brian said he has done this,
and found that the optimum is achieved when the weights on the output end of the
lever weigh the same as the weights on the primary pendulum.
This effect seems to be independent of the length of the lever, though I don’t
know if Brian has analyzed that variable sufficient to draw such a conclusion.
The third mockup Brian showed me was one bicycle wheel attached to a wooden
frame. The wheel had a weight at the bottom of it to serve as a pendulum. On the
upper right of the wheel was a magnet, which was juxtaposed by a coil mounted to
the wooden frame, to serve as an excitation mechanism to pulse the wheel. On the
upper left of the wheel was a small magnet juxtaposed to a detector to trigger
the firing of the coil, delayed slightly by a capacitor.
on Bicycle Wheel, Swung by Impulse Coil(21 seconds)
A bicycle wheel with weights on the bottom is made to oscillate back
and forth via a magnet affixed to the perimeter of the tire, being
pulsed by a coil, connected to a circuit, powered by a battery.
Brian showed me that this set-up begins oscillating as soon as the battery is
hooked up to it, and the oscillations grow larger in amplitude until they go
into the mechanical limitations, swinging more than 180-degrees from left to
right, requiring the battery to be disconnected to prevent damage.
The purpose of that mock-up was merely to demonstrate a mechanism for
electronically controlling the primary oscillator. It needs more work in order
to be tunable to the output required.
The last mockup we looked at was the one described in an earlier report at
PESWiki, involving two bicycle wheels.
Pendulum Creates Secondary Oscillations(21 seconds)
The smaller bike tire with weights on the bottom, caused to swing
back and forth, creates an up-and-down oscillation in a second
wheel, to which the smaller is attached. The second wheel is lined
with magnets, juxtaposed by coils, so that as the magnets are made
to pass back and forth by the coils, electricity is generated. Once
optimized, this arrangement could create more electrical output than
is required to keep the primary pendulum swinging.
The smaller wheel serves as the primary pendulum, with weights attached at
the bottom. The smaller wheel is also fitted with a magnet on the upper right,
juxtaposed to a coil for eventual input stimulation, similar to the mockup just
described above. That smaller wheel is attached by its axle to a larger wheel on
the right side; and a counter weight is affixed on the left side, so that as the
small wheel oscillates with its pendulum action, it causes the larger wheel to
oscillate in a secondary motion.
Around the perimeter of the larger wheel are six magnets juxtaposed by six
coils, such that electricity is generated via the magnets passing by the coils
as the wheel is rocked back and forth by the primary oscillator. The idea is
that the input necessary to keep the primary, small, pendulum wheel oscillating
will be less than the output electricity generated by the secondary wheel
oscillating back and forth.
Brian didn’t have the timing set right to be able to demonstrate this stably,
but we were able to take some mechanical measurements with this system that
showed greater force in the secondary oscillator than what was required to keep
the pendulum action going in the primary oscillator.
To measure this, we used the fish scale again. It took around two pounds of pull
to keep the primary pendulum swinging.
We measured the back-and-forth movement of the secondary wheel to be around ¾
of an inch. Half of that would signify the displacement from center; so we took
the fish scale and pulled on one of the spokes, nearest the periphery and
measured 14 pounds to get the wheel to move 3/8 of an inch. It took quite a bit
more force than this to pull the wheel free from that cog position in relation
to the magnets and their juxtapositioned coils.
The wheel is hard to turn against the
force of the magnets resisting a move away from the coils, to which
they are magnetically attracted.
The difference between how much energy it took to manually keep the pendulum
swinging versus how difficult it was to manually move the secondary wheel was
easily perceived by hand, even without instruments to put numbers to that
These three mechanisms all demonstrated that the secondary oscillation exhibits
several times more force than the force required to keep the primary pendulum
The task is to come up with a practical way to harness this difference and
create a device that can generate usable energy while feeding back what little
energy is required to keep the system oscillating.
While our present understanding of physics does not describe nor allow such a
scenario, these preliminary findings suggest that harnessing this mechanical
amplification effect is indeed possible with the right ingenuity. Future studies
are likely to describe why this is possible, and why it does not violate natural
laws, but rather how it harnesses the wheelwork of nature.
After demonstrating these mock-ups, we discussed some possible ways to
efficiently harness the high torque output from the secondary lever forces.
Brian had two friends present with us, Allen Grover and Nile Cole, both of
Salem, Utah, who contributed to this brainstorming session. They are also
involved in making replications of the effect, and are pursuing practical
mechanisms for harnessing this phenomenon.
Since the time of my first visit, Brian has come up with a way to put a
ratcheting mechanism on the secondary lever, whereby the primary pendulum can be
transformed into rotational energy coming from the up-and-down motions of the
secondary lever. Using that set-up, he has gotten the output wheel to spin at
over 100 rmp from an input of between one and two watts to keep the primary
pendulum swinging. The problem had been getting enough up-and-down distance to
move from one ratchet position to the next. The long-armed lever gave him the
degree of movement required.
Berrett's Ratcheted Lever Output from Pendulum Input (9 seconds) [Download,
if YouTube doesn't work for you]
A circuit causes a coil to fire to keep a primary pendulum swinging,
comprised of weights on the bottom of a bike tire. The axle is
affixed to a lever. On the other end of the lever is another bicycle
wheel that is caused to spin by the ratcheting mechanism of the gear
mechanism in relation to a stationary chain that causes the sprocket
to advance and retreat as the tire bounces up and down due to the
action of the lever.
The springs that suspend the lever are
not clearly visible in the above video.
Notwithstanding the mechanical losses in this crude prototype, this is a
significant accomplishment. While the input excitation takes between one
and two watts, Brian has calculated that the up-and-down force is comparable to
around 170 Watts.
Brian’s intent in this project is to stick with readily-accessible components
so that the design could be easily built anywhere in the world.
NOTE: We are presently moderating all
comments, to keep out the crass negativity, flaming, and other
inappropriate forms of criticism. We welcome constructive
criticism tactfully stated. Frequent offenders will be
"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and
right." -- Albert Einstein
ADVISORY: With any
technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money
unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the
technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the
technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of
truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
"When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."