http://pesn.com/2007/03/18/9500462_Berrett_pendulums/ You are here: PureEnergySystems.com > News > March 18, 2007

Click flag to translate

Top 100
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 claims.

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2007

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 Newton.

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 impossible.

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 swinging.

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.

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.

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 scale.

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 output.

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.

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.

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 difference.


Conclusions

These three mechanisms all demonstrated that the secondary oscillation exhibits several times more force than the force required to keep the primary pendulum swinging.

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.


Ongoing Research

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.

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.

The project is being pursued via an open source forum at http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Milkovic-Berrett_Secondary_Oscillator_Generator

# # #

See also Milkovic Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator - index at PESWiki.com More Stories by Sterling D. Allan PESN (Pure Energy Systems News) - Feature stories on cutting-edge energy technology. Free Energy News (.com) - Daily, cutting-edge energy technology news from around the world PESWiki Latest - Newest pages in the publicly-editable energy directory. Free Energy Now™ - 1-hour, in-depth, live interview, each Monday, 1:00 - 2:00 pm Mountain. This Week in Free Energy™ - Ten-minute blurb each Sunday, 7:50 - 8:00 pm Mountain.

Page composed by Sterling D. Allan Mar. 17, 2007 Last updated March 24, 2007