William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[Michael John Nunnerley]

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...

Yes they will move independantly, that is a ball and socket in the end of the shaft, it is free to turn and move in and out of the shaft.

You can see on the video that the end of the shaft is smaller than the shaft itself, so leading to the possibility it is as I have shown, a stub end with a ball into the long shaft with a machined out socket that it sits in. The circular plate and tie rods are holding it in there.

regards

Mike

[goldpro]

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 think you may be correct.
In the video I see something sticking up on the top of the translation plate directly above the top of the lower weight shaft. It might be just the head of a bolt that goes through the plate and screws into the top of the fixed
"ball joint part" as you have drawn, holding it there. the other end of it has the ball on it which is inside the possibly hollow shaft.

I think we can achieve the same results with a gimbal bearing fixed into, or onto the bottom surface of the translation plate. Just need flexibility for the top of the bottom weight shaft. Maybe a gimbal bearing wasn't so available or cheap back in the 1930's.

Here's another idea: the weights might be filled with water.
I see a "cap" of some type on the top of the upper weight just past where the weight support arm ends. Kinda hard to see in the video but something is there. The "cap" on the lower weight might have a removable allen wrench plug in it.

Please elaborate a bit more if you care to on why the bottom weight must be tall.

Tom

[zapzap]

Picture, info?

1939 Press Photo Miami FLA Inventor WF Skinner Gravity Machine | eBay

Scroll down.

[goldpro]

Wow, thanks very much for that link.
I hope someone here bought it.
we should be able to learn more from it.

Tom

[zapzap]

His attorneys were?

On some later patent work of W. F. Skinner (1947-1949) the attorney names were:
Clarence A. O’Brien and Harvey B. Jackson of Washington D.C.

Patent US2477210 - Refrigerator drinking water cooler - Google Patents

For me this is the first bit of solid information that W.F. Skinner was still around and inventing at roughly a decade after the gravity powered machine (GPM).

So, patent a water cooler (with attorneys no less) but not the GPM?

[shylo]

The angle

Zap , Thanks for that link ,first good shot of the upper .
Look at the angle of the smaller upper weight compared to the lower.
When it runs the lower always seems to find 90 deg. offset (lag) ,from the leading upper.
You could drive it with 2 if you wanted, but either one will do, the elipitical or rotational.
Trying to use a big output pulley to increase rpm in the generator, but it still working out the same.
Using the skinner device, with all the extra connection points, should use more power...? but it doesn't.
You need one shaft inside the other,...
artv

[Aaron]

size and weight

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

My build is a prototype to prove the principles and that is about it. I don't think there is much stress on this machine - there only 2 major points of contact to the frame are the lower weight shaft and that rotates in a perfect circle a the bottom where it connects and any good bearing system can handle it - this is nothing compared to the stress of a common engine crankshaft main bearing and those last for many years. The upper major point of contact is the pivot point for the lever (gimbal) and that isn't even bearing any weight except the lever - its relationship to the plate isn't bearing the weight either, just keeps it almost balanced but just a bit off center. I think Skinner's build with its dimensions would last for many years without problems.

[goldpro]

watching the video at 27 seconds...
when he moves the top weight with his hand...
look at the flat belt pulley in front of his forehead...
It turns...
what does that tell you?

It tells me that there's a very good possibility that the translation coupler plate/top weight is directly connected to the drive system all the way back to the motor (except for the fast and loose pulley/clutch system) and not loosely coupled. Can loose gimbal connections and ellipses do that?

Also, at about the 30 second mark where he's pushing the weights look below his left forearm and also over in the lower right hand corner of the screen. You can see 2 of the other top weight support bars moving a bit.
That tells me that all 4 are directly connected, probably with gears.

Just trying to be helpful,


Tom

[Aaron]

not directly coupled

watching the video at 27 seconds...
when he moves the top weight with his hand...
look at the flat belt pulley in front of his forehead...
It turns...
what does that tell you?

The coupler plate moves the lever connected to the upper mechanism that is tied to the pulleys - doesn't mean it is directly coupled. You just have to build the mechanism properly to understand what it is.

I can grab the upper part of the lower shaft and spin it around and make the coupler plate move, which makes the upper weight move and it will move the lever, but the lower shaft and the plate and upper weight are not directly coupled.

Build it and you will know.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

watching the video at 27 seconds...
when he moves the top weight with his hand...
look at the flat belt pulley in front of his forehead...
It turns...
what does that tell you?

It tells me that there's a very good possibility that the translation coupler plate/top weight is directly connected to the drive system all the way back to the motor (except for the fast and loose pulley/clutch system) and not loosely coupled. Can loose gimbal connections and ellipses do that?

Also, at about the 30 second mark where he's pushing the weights look below his left forearm and also over in the lower right hand corner of the screen. You can see 2 of the other top weight support bars moving a bit.
That tells me that all 4 are directly connected, probably with gears.

Just trying to be helpful,


Tom

The 4 units are connected to one drive assembly at the very bottom, I think he made 4 like that to reduce the overall size and maintain a good power output.

Those bottom weights are tall for a reason, it makes the top of them farther out from the bottom final connection, you need to triangulate them from a straight up line from the very bottom bearing. They are parallel to the shaft but not the center of gravity through that bottom bearing, the center of gravity for the top of the weight is naturally straight down and quite some distance from that bottom bearing, it is also continually leaning forward in the direction of movement, this is the ever changing reference produced at that top plate, so it will always go around if that reference is changed ( changing reference uses very little energy, the mass will always follow that reference due to gravity), the fisical weight of that mass moving is where your output power comes from and not from anything else.

So add up those masses and increase your power, he did this in the most compact way he could, not one huge weight, but 4 smaller weights (but still quite big), like a one cylinder engine or four, but here they are all on a power stroke

regards

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Here is the top of the shaft showing a stub end system as explained by me

regards

Mike

[goldpro]

The coupler plate moves the lever connected to the upper mechanism that is tied to the pulleys - doesn't mean it is directly coupled. You just have to build the mechanism properly to understand what it is.

I can grab the upper part of the lower shaft and spin it around and make the coupler plate move, which makes the upper weight move and it will move the lever, but the lower shaft and the plate and upper weight are not directly coupled.

Build it and you will know.

I'm really looking forward to seeing someone's build of a working elliptical type mechanism that can start and run a 4 pole machine.

Yes, I understand about the lower weight shaft being indirectly coupled.
That's how I built my model. I can grab mine and spin it around also.
You can see it in my pics.


Tom

[goldpro]

The 4 units are connected to one drive assembly at the very bottom, I think he made 4 like that to reduce the overall size and maintain a good power output.

Those bottom weights are tall for a reason, it makes the top of them farther out from the bottom final connection, you need to triangulate them from a straight up line from the very bottom bearing. They are parallel to the shaft but not the center of gravity through that bottom bearing, the center of gravity for the top of the weight is naturally straight down and quite some distance from that bottom bearing, it is also continually leaning forward in the direction of movement, this is the ever changing reference produced at that top plate, so it will always go around if that reference is changed ( changing reference uses very little energy, the mass will always follow that reference due to gravity), the fisical weight of that mass moving is where your output power comes from and not from anything else.

So add up those masses and increase your power, he did this in the most compact way he could, not one huge weight, but 4 smaller weights (but still quite big), like a one cylinder engine or four, but here they are all on a power stroke

regards

Mike

Thanks Mike,
Unfortunately I'm not able to follow the first part of your explanation too well.
I'll cogitate on that triangulation idea.
Maybe I'm making it more difficult than it is.

Would what you've explained be true, if the support bar were half way up the lower shaft? what about if it was up near the top of the lower weight shaft?

Do you suppose at some rpm the centrifugal force of the lower weight overtakes the gravity force?

Tom

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Thanks Mike,
Unfortunately I'm not able to follow the first part of your explanation too well.
I'll cogitate on that triangulation idea.
Maybe I'm making it more difficult than it is.

Would what you've explained be true, if the support bar were half way up the lower shaft? what about if it was up near the top of the lower weight shaft?

Do you suppose at some rpm the centrifugal force of the lower weight overtakes the gravity force?

Tom

Tom, "what if's" don't really help, "what is" is what we have to concentrate on, then when it is working we can say "what if" to make improvements.

The centrifugal force, RPM in relation to gravity, if you think about it, is controlled automatic. The RPM of this machine is controlled by the mass of those bottom weights, think about it, it has auto RPM control, Skinner nor the motor are controlling the RPM.

This machine is self controlled just like what you are asking me. Well thats how I see it at the moment, but not having a working model, I can't prove that, but that's where the logic leads me.

It becomes more interesting the more you delve into it

Oh for a nice fabrication shop

regards

Mike

[Aaron]

1939 Gravity Power

The rpm is directly proportional to the action of the input lever. For every one full back and forth oscillation of the lever, there is one full elliptical rotation. If the input motor that turns the input lever in an ellipse was speeded up a bit more than what he is showing, then the speed would increase by a proportionate amount - but of course any speeding up has to be done slow enough so the lower weight can keep up with the coupler plate rotation speed. And the other way around, if the input motor speed was cut in half, the lever oscillation would cut in half and the rpm of elliptical orbit would be cut in half. This is how I see it anyway as it is an intrinsic part of the design.

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

Just a general comment to everyone on replicating devices.

It is very common for many people to want an exact schematic for a circuit and there becomes a big dependency on that. Whereas if the principles are understood, specific schematics or blueprints are irrelevant because it can be done from scratch by anyone else as long as the principles are done.

For me, it is irrelevant the exact method Skinner used to connect this to that or that to this. My lower shaft is cut in half and the copper sleeve keeps them both in alignment. The bottom half of my lower half is welded to the swivel socket at the very bottom while the top half of the lower shaft is in the collar bearing on the translation coupler so that they are disconnected and the lower weight can free spin around independent of the translation coupler. It isn't what Skinner used but I am applying the principles that are used in his machine and my mechanism does 100% exactly what his is accomplishing. I'm making no energy claims but my early tests showed me everything I needed to know. Everyone has to do their own tests and figured out what they believe is going on.

Looking at various comments across multiple sites, so many people are stuck in not moving forward because they're still going in circles over how Skinner built the machine - while a handful of people are simply applying the principles and they already have builds (without energy claims) that are demonstrating the mechanism of what Skinner is doing.

I know half a dozen ways to build the entire Skinner machine that will do exactly what it does in the video as there are many ways to skin a cat. If you're in the stone ages and have no bearings, oil soaked leather will work just fine as a bearing and will last just as long if not longer. I'm only posting this to discourage the "analysis paralysis" that often happens in replication attempts and to encourage focusing on what is more important, which is understanding the principles involved.

I've designed a couple machines that are not the Skinner machine in the last year and a half after figuring out exactly what Skinner was doing - that has less gain that what Skinner is claiming but only takes 1/10th the effort to build. That was only made possible because I applied just a couple of the principles of the Skinner machine. A few people have noticed but most have not - the Skinner machine opened a real can of worms.

Focusing on the principle that I explained from the beginning in my videos, it takes a small amount of energy to simply change the center of gravity of a mass compared to what it takes to lift it. That is in all my papers and videos from a year and a half ago.

Like I mentioned that a child can balance a full 55 gallon drum on edge with no problem. If you tip it 1 degree in one direction from being balanced, the only weight the child has to deal with is the weight that is over the center of gravity and that is it - not the whole weight of the drum. So effectively, the child only has to work to move that much weight around in a rotation, yet the entire weight of the barrel is rotating creating torque. Just this concept alone can be applied to an infinite amount of different machines that are not even remotely close to what the Skinner machine looks like. This is the #1 primary principle that gives the output work and Skinner's entire machine is designed to simply accomplish that in a very clever manner.

The lower weight is always falling like I showed that when the lower shaft is moved at the top, the center of gravity changes and since the lower weight can move independent of the translation coupler, it "falls" to the inside incline of the lower shaft. That is the "always falling" that Skinner is talking about. That is a very incredible principle but is still secondary to the principle #1 up above... this is just a means to an end... the always falling principle is simply a way to help accomplish primary principle #1 in a most elegant way.

Even the elliptical motion is not primary - that is just a way to maximize the gains through the oscillation of speeding up and slowing down on the ellipse where the input lever pops the rotation at each narrow end of the ellipse when the rotation is at the peak speed. It is an important principle, but is still subordinate to the primary principle #1 - of simply shifting the center of gravity of an imbalanced mass.

The lower weight is 100% of the time always imbalanced so nothing imbalances it. It is already like that - moving the top of the lower shaft only shifts where the center of gravity is of the already imbalanced mass.

Anyway, just my 2 cents - having fun watching this all unfold.