William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[Aaron]

use of video

I want to ask permission to aaron

Go for it! Just please give credit and reference this thread if you don't mind. Good luck!

[artoj]

All OK

No problems Hal , as Aaron said, just credit and link back, enjoy and I hope to see some exciting activity, Regards Arto.

[gotoluc]

I want to ask permission to aaron, artoj and gotoluc to use your videos/images in a editing i am doing with the key concepts explained in portuguese, to start this thread in our (newly created) brazilian forum.

No problem ... I share so all can use.

Luc

[hal.freeman]

Thanks a lot guys

[goldpro]

Hopefully this post will have some pics included in it.
I've never added pics to a post so bear with me....technopesant at work.

These are pics of my meccano version.
Overall dimension are 16" tall, 12" wide, & 6" deep.

When I turn the red crank handle at the top (slowly at first) the lever's orbiting motion (at the top, attached to the large wheel) will turn the translation coupler plate which is fixed to it's lower end.

The translation plate's rotational movement will tilt the lower weight's shaft and it will "fall" over and start to turn on the universal at the bottom.

I've made it with just 2 "power units" (2 pole) instead of 4 because of a lack of parts. I figured the 2 would balance each other enough.

It functions ok and whirls around the lower weights just like in the video but the "feel" on the red hand crank handle tells me it's fairly hard to turn so probably no mechanical amplification happening. This could be due to many factors. There are no bearings used...just basically the holes in the meccano pieces so lots of friction. The out put shaft sticks up vertically but I haven't attached anything to it yet so there's lots of possibilities there.

I think I may have to rebuild the drive section and make the lever rod twice as long.

It uses the circular drive motion as I laid out in my post #179 on page 6.

Maybe Aaron could get Jim Murray to comment on the video.

Tom

[goldpro]

I wanted to add a couple more pics but the uploader gives me this message .

"exceeds your quota by 807KB"

Any way around that?

[shylo]

friction

Hi Goldpro, I'm having a hard time with binding parts , every little bit of friction kills, but even with all the loses' I'm still seeing a gain .
It should consume more power to run the skinner device ,than just driving the output on its' own.
The only thing I do when it says I exceed my capacity is delete old uploads.
Still having a hard time with the lower bearing, I still can't run at full speed.
artv

[goldpro]

It should consume more power to run the skinner device ,than just driving the output on its' own.
The only thing I do when it says I exceed my capacity is delete old uploads.
artv

Shylo,
Shouldn't the skinner devise output more power that it takes to just run itself?
I see what you mean about capacity...might have to remove a pic to add another one.

thanks
Tom

[artoj]

Some Elliptical ideas

All these designs should work, the first one is a slight modification from my Hyperbolic Drive design, it will produce ellipses and many other interesting permutations from ellipses to all forms of hyper-cyclic shapes and patterns, the requirement would be a variable speed on the second sprocket/gear/pulley. I have drawn it as a 1/2 speed, with the shape of an ellipse, this would be easy to adapt using chains etc. The original Skinner is most likely the last picture and would be very similar to what I have here. The drawings are quick sketches, adapt your materials to suite. I hope this helps with all your builds. Regards Arto.





This final drawing is the easiest to build and would be very close to skinners design. Just be careful if you are using different lengths, the sizes are very accurate.



Talking to the Birds: A Compilation of Essays, Studies and Artwork (Volume 1): Mr Arto Juhani Heino: 9781876406035: Amazon.com: Books

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Hi all

I have attached two drawings, the top drive has to be ellipitcal as shown in second drawing, this is how Skinner has this, you can see this in the video.

Each section is decoupled from the next, the top weight acts like a sling shot, it is also elliptical and also keeps that top cam going around on the end of the back and forth lever and because it is tracing two movements it is also an ellipse.

Now people are going to say that even with an ellipse there is going to be a part of the ellipse which will take power to get it past that point, well that top weight is a sling shot which gives that power to get over that point in the ellipitcal orbit (like the space craft going around the back of the moon and sling shot towards the earth on it's return). The amount of input energy is incredibly small to do this once it is at running speed.

The fact that the bottom weight and output is not directly powered by the upper assembly, leaves that full bottom weight to translate to the output and has nothing to do with the input, the input only moves the center of gravity in relation to that bottom mass, that relationship is an infinite change (that you must get your heads around so as to understand what is happening).

Saying that the bottom weight is falling always is only correct as a relation of changing of center of gravity in relation to that mass. It is totally brilliant, that center of gravity is an invisible point which can be moved without touching that heavy mass, that mass will always want to maintain it's relationship to that center, and so moves of it's own accord and gives up energy under the free moving (falling) mass law under gravity.

You only have to see that the heavies in these forums for knocking down energy generators, are keeping away, because they would be under a hiding to nothing, it logicly works, there is no argument against it by moving that center of gravity relationship, and they know it.

All that needs to be done is build it the right way to demonstrate this, and remember that the amount of power output will be in relation to that bottom weight only, Skinner multipied that by 4 to keep it compact, also the height is important and why they are long (I won't go into that at the moment, but some will know why a very high building falling sideways is not the same as if it fell in on itself).

best regards to all and "good" building

Mike

[ybaggi]

Cartesian Ellipse

my cartesian mind wants to use two drive motors at a right angl to each other.
Once would be mounted on a sledge moved by the first. and the sencond would
connect to the lever activating the machine....

Problems would include snchronising the two motors. if that is important. Becasue the ellipse would most certainly rotate on it's center point.

Plus it woule need two motors instead of one....duh!

So I'm for a simple mechanical Idea but this is how my mind works, it used what I'm used to to solf problems.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I thought I would copy post this:-

Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:[3]
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\ ,
where:

F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.
Diagram of two masses attracting one another

Assuming SI units, F is measured in newtons (N), m1 and m2 in kilograms (kg), r in meters (m), and the constant G is approximately equal to 6.674×10−11 N m2 kg−2.[4] The value of the constant G was first accurately determined from the results of the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798, although Cavendish did not himself calculate a numerical value for G.[5] This experiment was also the first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory. It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and 71 years after Newton's death, so none of Newton's calculations could use the value of G; instead he could only calculate a force relative to another force.

Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of electrical force between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, in which force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.

Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the sun).

regards

Mike

[hal.freeman]

ok, i've showed the machine to a friend that is more kin to mechanics (i'm to eletronics, although i don't have a lab ).

At a first look glance, he told that the machine has a "problem of inbalance"... Then i told him that the inbalance was THE PRINCIPLE of the whole thing and we would have to deal with it. I emphasized the fact that Skinner had four modules to keep it more balanced and preventing it from tipping over. But probably with someone build one single model large enough, maybe it would be necessary some weiths at the bottom of the whole build to prevent it from tipping.

He said the problem is that the parts of the machine would suffer lot's of stress and probably it wouldn't last long (especially aaron's build). We should probably overdimension parts in relation to stress supported. It would be great if someone could do a deep mathmatical analisys of the whole thing as I believe it doesn't require different laws of physics, just a different approach to thinking a rotational machine...

I was wondering, to start planning my build, what would be the sizes of the whole thing... I agree with aaron that size is important, and toy models like goldpro's will never reach overunity. Probably it's easier to start with just one module to test the thing but how big COP can be attained with just one? maybe the 12 Skinner got should be accounted as 3 per module, at least. I want to make it to self run, that's why these considerations are so important...

So Artoj, what do you think should be the high of the shaft of the lower (output) weight and the weight itself? What should be the proportion of the lower weight to the middle one? What should be the height of the input lever? What should be the overall proportions of the machine? What should the lower weight be, at minimun, to get a significant output torque to be able to self run??

I couldn't figure this out by looking at your drawings (sorry for being so dumb )

Another thing i could'n grasp, and obviously artoj and gotoluc could, is the original skinner method of disconnecting the lower shaft, for it to be able to rotate and not be locked to the translation plate.... Aaron low-tech low-budget method of using copper tubing seems to fall on the problem of it not withstanding the stresses of the machine operating for long. This machine has to operate long enough to document the overunity

That' all for now. Just thoughts. Have a good day and may Brasil win the soccer game

[Michael John Nunnerley]

How I now "think" this is connected at the translation plate, itis a stub with a ball end in a socket, even the bottom shaft could have been a tube!!

All ends are fixed into the plate, the stub can move in and out of the shaft, but it is held down by the weight and a spring which is inside from ball to retaining plate.

regards

Mike

[hal.freeman]

How I now "think" this is connected at the translation plate, itis a stub with a ball end in a socket, even the bottom shaft could have been a tube!!

All ends are fixed into the plate, the stub can move in and out of the shaft, but it is held down by the weight and a spring which is inside from ball to retaining plate.

regards

Mike

I disagree, this is vary clear on the video, i can tell the exact video time later, but you can clearly see when Skinner rotates the two weights independently...