William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[Aaron]

spring loaded pivot for lever

I posted the following comment on Rohndoe's video showing his gimbal. He didn't respond, but I'll post it here.

Just the gimbal is NOT the final story. I said from the beginning the pivot mechanism is spring loaded. Even if it is not, it is similar and is not just a gimbal - here was my comment:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rohndoe, the rod connected to the gimbal rotates elliptically - you can download my zipped file that shows this on the Skinner machine: http://www.energeticforum.com/257516-post127.html it is in that post. In the very beginning of his video, you can see the top bar oscillating back and forth. But on the end of that bar, the input lever is rotating. But since the oscillating bar changes the axis that the top of the input lever is moving around, it is elliptical.

In your video at 1:04, the input lever stays perpendicular to the pins on the left and right. The pins are at 90 degrees to the input lever and cannot move.

If you look at the original video Gravity Power! (1939) at 0:35 to 0:39, that actually doesn't happen on the Skinner machine. The input lever does not stay 90 degrees to the end plates. The plates actually lag behind the lever. At 0:37 to 0:38 when you see the lever moving back towards the right, that plate catches up and then moves right again slightly lagging behind it. That is why I suggested from the beginning that there is some spring loaded action in there possibly. I hope that helps. It should be more obvious in your slow motion segment of that.

In your slow motion segment - at 0:17 to 0:18, the lever goes to the maximum point towards the left. Right at 0:19 it starts to move towards the right. It isn't until 0:26 that they become 90 degrees to each other again. At 0:32 when it starts to go left, it is very obvious that the end plate on the right does not even move because it hasn't caught up...it is not locked to the movement of the lever. I think the whole gimbal idea makes sense like what you and Eltimple have shown but there is something more to it like some spring in between the rod your lever is inserted to and the end plate, but not solidly locked to it.

EDIT - YOUTUBE ASSUMED THOSE TIME MENTIONS IN THE COMMENTS WERE FOR HIS GIMBAL VIDEO, BUT THEY'RE FOR THIS ONE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3zs8vcBJyE

------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone reads what I just posted and looks at the video clips, it is common sense that the lever is not moving in synchronicity or in phase with the side of the gimbal plate because before the lever starts on its way back to the other direction, the gimbal plate LAGS behind the lever meaning it is not locked to it - if you look at the way Rohndoe made his gimbal - the center round section that is locked to each end plate as the primary axis the lever is attached to - there must be some spring between that round piece and the end as a buffer or to get some spring action.

Just read my comment and look at the videos and it is undeniable that it is spring loaded or similar but is NOT simply just a gimbal - why I seem to be the only one that can see this is wackier than all get out and everyone has ignored this through this entire thread so far. The gimbal plates perpendicular to the pivot point LAGS behind the lever on each return trip.

[d3x0r]

(kinda a recap too... Overunity.com crashed, and I wanted to keep my edits)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxIRaJlTD4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolNozy8UEY (Aaron's... led me here)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3lpFvuzps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-KVo4lxHgE (thejohndevice.com)

So I've been considering this. The only way something can fall is if it is higher than it started....
from equilibrium/stop condition, the first motion at the top actually raises the weight slightly.
gravity acts not on an entire body... but is really about the center of mass....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiyMuHuCFo4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCw5JXD18y4


*thinks* ... need some better sketches and models...
-----
I'll have to dig way back into memory and pull out some calculus I guess...
as the top moves (rotates is the simpler model), X degrees, then the center of mass is lifted, and then falls at an angle and creates a rotation as it falls back to its original height. This path is always longer than the height it was raised, so it must take a longer time, therefore it's accelerated by gravity for a longer amount of time than the time which it took to raise the weight in the first place.

if the angle at the top of the shaft is very slight, then less work is applied to raise the weight, though it then has a much shorter distance to fall... but the angle of incline should resemble something like a cylinder rolling down a hill accelerated by gravity. So it's forward motion will be sin(slope) * m * g... But; that would only work if slope < 90 degrees... if it's vertical m has no bearing.... so then is it really a cylinder on a slope?
PhysicsLAB: Rotational Dynamics: Rolling Spheres/Cylinders

feather and hammer drop on moon; they fall at same rate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mCC-68LyZM (okay force is not acceleration) so a heavier object gets more force applied

(distraction; not applicable: hmm a long chain falling out of a beaker goes up first... like way up over the beaker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dQJBBklpQQ
Physicists explain 'gravity-defying' chain trick : Nature News & Comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTC3bKea2Yo (longer chains from higher heights)
)

Hmm... well due to inertia, the mass falling vertically must have the same force being applied if it's non vertical, and something like the cos(angle) vertically and sin(angle) around axis or rotation... but then to get to the bottom it must apply that force for a longer time than it took to raise the object in the first place, resulting in a net acceleration of the object greater than the initial impulse....

search for "gravity acceleration tilted axis -accelerometer -digital -sensor" didn't reveal any useful math... so maybe again it's a case I don't know what physicists would call it?

or 'acceleration deflection gravity around tilted axis -accelerometer -sensor'

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I'm trying to understand the precession of the Skinner machine with respect to your friend's comment.

Precession is tied to rotational speed.

Similar to a top spinning, the precession angle and rotational speed are very small when the top is spinning very fast but as the top slows down, the precession angle and speed increases and the top starts to wobble until ultimately falling over.

In Mr. Skinner device the top of the spinning mass is restrained from any precession angle change.

Also, could ask your friend if he thinks precession could occur at 60 RPM?

Thanks,
Charlie

My friend works for INTA " Instituto National de Técnica Aeroespacial", I do not normally argue against him, he is far superior to me when it comes down to the mathematics. As far as precession is tied to rotational speed and the high RPM of a gyro, the answer is, not always, depends on the type of angular precession, but here we are not talking about a gyro as in your top. Here we are talking about the infinite changing of coordinates created by firstly the center weight assembly moving the bottom shaft,and secondly by the applying of a variable load to the output.

As I have said and he agrees, you have to look at this in 3D and as long as it is moving the speed does not matter, a gyroscopic motion is not required, the change is controlled and made externally, that is the only input from the motor.

Regards

Mike

PS. I will pop in here from time to time.

[velacreations]

has anyone been able to test the output of their replication?

[Cisco]

output test

has anyone been able to test the output of their replication?

See Dave Q's post #321:
"I have tested the output from my model today. As it appeared in the videos, the Meccano model produced less power out than in."

[velacreations]

See Dave Q's post #321:
"I have tested the output from my model today. As it appeared in the videos, the Meccano model produced less power out than in."

Thanks, yeah I did see that one, I was wondering if anyone else had a chance to test, yet.

[Aaron]

Skinner Machine

has anyone been able to test the output of their replication?

I said in the beginning that I did some of those tests with the rotor, leather strap and spring scales to find out the real mechanical work compared to input. Showed me enough to keep going.

I think everyone needs to stop comparing input vs output meters because it is not an honest test. Measure MECHANICAL output compared to the draw. Output generator has losses so you'll never know by measuring the electrical what the mechanical is. Also, anyone doing measurements with circular lever action is not even measuring what the Skinner machine is doing. Use the elliptical lever motion or you do not have a Skinner machine. Also, measurements on a very small machine are irrelevant. The losses are always a higher % than on a scaled up machine so at least test it on something of reasonable size.

I don't share my results because I'm not making any claims for power. My only claim here is that I figured out the machine almost 2 years ago, which I did. We've come this far and there is still debate on it being a flywheel, circular vs elliptical, etc...

Obviously nobody has to agree with me but doing the experiments will tell everything.

[Dave Q]

I have attached a couple of drawings which I hope will illustrate the differences between the reciprocating linear drive, and the rotary drive.

On closer inspection of the ammeters shown on my latest video, I was pleased to see that the 90* out of phase arrangement actually produces a tiny negative current pulse.

(With reference to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4KG...ature=youtu.be )

Sorry, I've tried repeatedly to attach my drawings but the "manage attachments" option does nothing.

Frustrating as I'd like to share them.
I'll try tomorrow

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I have attached a couple of drawings which I hope will illustrate the differences between the reciprocating linear drive, and the rotary drive.

On closer inspection of the ammeters shown on my latest video, I was pleased to see that the 90* out of phase arrangement actually produces a tiny negative current pulse.

(With reference to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4KG...ature=youtu.be )

Sorry, I've tried repeatedly to attach my drawings but the "manage attachments" option does nothing.

Frustrating as I'd like to share them.
I'll try tomorrow

Hi Dave

Make sure your attachments are of the right file type, best in a pdf form.

We can all get submerged into something where we can't see the forest for the trees, this happens to me many times, and it is when I need to stand back and think from another angle.

All of what you are saying is correct, but in this particular machine there is more going on than we can imagine in the first instance, and this more going on as of yet has not been quantified by science, if it ever will be

Here is part of a paper done on a mathematical scale, it has been sent to me by my long time friend, and he implies that even though this primarly is concerned with mechanical reactive power, it can also apply to the Skinner machine and he also hinted to me that when a mathematical solution does not show what normal known science "requires" then things start to be fudged to make them apply

This should be read from "example 2", the reference is to a pendulum which "can have an elliptical motion". The jury is still out on this, so we can't define exactly what is going on, he suggests that the Skinner machine possibly is experimental evidence that the equations should not be fudged so as to make them classicly apply to what science says must happen.

All interesting stuff, has Skinner opened a can of worms? time will tell, I personally think he has, albeit after his death and the aid of internet to make it public.

I think once that top drive is sorted out, "sorry Dave, (my opinion), yours is not right", it must not be a direct drive of linear to circular, that does not seem to be what he did.

By the way, here in Valencia we did have a half ton ball pendulum moving in an elliptical orbit and was kept going with a capacitor (perminently), the swing was somthing like 10mtrs. I believe it has been removed (for space they said).

https://www.youtube.com/user/ciudada.../0/0EtOIcB6p1g

Look hard at that top drive, the rest is not a problem.

regards

Mike

[goldpro]

Hi again,

I built a two stage model of the linear drive, and have uploaded a video to youtube comparing the drives connected 180* and then 90* out of phase.

I'm happy to say that the result is what I'd hoped for

This is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4KG...ature=youtu.be

Dave,
The first slow motion part shows the weights going in opposite directions.
That's not what the skinner machine is doing. I suppose that was just a timing problem when starting as the regular speed video has them both going in the same direction.

the 2nd slow motion part could maybe represent 2 power units (poles) adjacent to each other but not across from each other. A full size machine would need 4 power units to balance itself so would your idea of cancelling work with all 4 power units?
Would one pair cancel the other pair?

Tom

[Aaron]

Input lever goes elliptical, indisputably

I think once that top drive is sorted out, "sorry Dave, (my opinion), yours is not right", it must not be a direct drive of linear to circular, that does not seem to be what he did.

Mike,

I don't know why only a few see it, but it is not even debatable that Skinner was rotating the top of the lever in an elliptical motion.

Just posted this on my video comments:

34:58 to 38:35 shows how the input mechanism works to rotate the top of the input lever in an elliptical motion. Just posting this because too much misinformation is already being pushed to deceive people into thinking it was only circular or back and forth. Anyone can look at the original video in the beginning and it is right there in plain sight.

Here is the original video showing EXACTLY what I am describing:

There is too much disinformation already posted in the forums claiming the input lever is moving either only back and forth or in a circle. It is NOT. 0:04 to 0:07 shows EXACTLY what the mechanism is. You can see the crossbar moving back and forth like a washing machine agitator. On the end of that, the lever is connected to a smaller bar or wheel that can spin around on an axis, HOWEVER, as the horizontal long bar moves back and forth, that changes the position of the axis around which the smaller bar or wheel on the end is moving forcing the upper part of the input lever to move in an elliptical motion!

I'm starting to believe the denial is intentional to prevent people from knowing what the machine is. Mike, you showed something similar to what I put in my video weeks ago. I think Arto put it in his drawings too.

[Dave Q]

Hi Aaron,

I've attached two drawings.
I hope they help explain the difference between the drives, and the great advantage of the upper linear, reciprocating drive.
(I have demonstrated and proved it now)

Regards,
Dave

[Dave Q]

Aaron,

I'm really sorry to read that you suspect deliberate misinformation is being posted.

I've been a compulsive inventor since childhood. At age 75, my motivation in the field of "free energy" is to break our current dependence on oil and utility companies.

I simply built what I could see, and my small models worked perfectly.
On Friday I was really excited to find that driving two properly timed reciprocating drives uses less power than driving one.

I can see that I should have worded my posts more diplomatically.
I've tried to be thorough and to demonstrate principles.

Sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings.

This will be my "last post" on the subject.

Best regards.

[alfilmx]

No, please Dave Q. your videos are among the most explicit.me like to see 2 full units working please.

[Aaron]

@Dave Q

Aaron,

I'm really sorry to read that you suspect deliberate misinformation is being posted.

I've been a compulsive inventor since childhood. At age 75, my motivation in the field of "free energy" is to break our current dependence on oil and utility companies.

I simply built what I could see, and my small models worked perfectly.
On Friday I was really excited to find that driving two properly timed reciprocating drives uses less power than driving one.

I can see that I should have worded my posts more diplomatically.
I've tried to be thorough and to demonstrate principles.

Sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings.

This will be my "last post" on the subject.

Best regards.

Dave,

I don't have any personal issues with you or your posts and I don't think you have been undiplomatic at all. Even if you were, there still is no issue.

I'm just blunt because there is more than one conversation on this subject going on and I think there is willful intent to prevent people from understanding this machine. (not you)