William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I have posted this on OU.com as well, it seems that nobody is sure how the top drive is made. Maybe I don't either but, I think this is as close as you can get, and you need to look hard at the videos, it's not easy to see, but when you know possibilities of how it can be done, just maybe you can see what I have drawn.

This is just the start, part A the top power input.

regards

Mike

[gotoluc]

There's one thing that I don't think anyone's touched on yet.

Most of the replications so far are single sections of Mr. Skinner's machine. Goldpro is the only one who has built a double unit and if you look at his, you will see the point I am about to make.

I believe the bottom tall weights on Mr. Skinner's machine are NOT free to fall on their own. In the original clip, you can see Mr. Skinner moving one slightly. But what you don't see is that the other 3 must also be moving because they are all mechanically linked together most likely with sprockets and chain to a central axle at the bottom of the machine. (actually if you look at around the 30 second mark you can see another arm moving as he moves the one)

You can see in the video that opposite sets of weights are always 180 degrees out of phase. Or adjacent sets are always 90 degrees apart. If they weren't mechanically timed this way the unbalance would tear the machine apart.

What that means is that the weights are either 'falling' in pairs or all at once with 2 falling to the outside and two falling to the inside, but not individually.

Assuming this is the case, its possible at startup that it could take several seconds to overcome the inertia and get the bottom weights moving and synchronized with the top weights. I watched the video again and there really isn't a portion that shows it starting up where you can see the bottom weights as well.

I agree with what you are pointing out and there could be more.
Here is what I've posted at the Overunity forum topic when sharing my thoughts on the UPPER mechanical movement of the upper levers.

one thing is quite clear to me now is, the actions of the two 180 degrees out of phase lever sets would return a push on the other set. Only mechanical friction losses should be the input losses.

This Mr. Skinner was smart!... If we can get this to work we should honor him with Doctor of mechanics and gravity.

Now, the problem I have is I would need a second build to prove this 180 degree out of phase push pull action is what's needed but I don't think I can afford to make another set

Luc

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Here is the middle drive, B.

regards

Mike

[purelyprimitives]

I agree with what you are pointing out and there could be more.
Here is what I've posted at the Overunity forum topic when sharing my thoughts on the UPPER mechanical movement of the upper levers.

one thing is quite clear to me now is, the actions of the two 180 degrees out of phase lever sets would return a push on the other set. Only mechanical friction losses should be the input losses.

This Mr. Skinner was smart!... If we can get this to work we should honor him with Doctor of mechanics and gravity.

Now, the problem I have is I would need a second build to prove this 180 degree out of phase push pull action is what's needed but I don't think I can afford to make another set

Luc

Hi Luc,

Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case.

If Arto's drawing is correct and it seems that it is based on viewing the original newsreel clip. And assuming we are talking about a symmetrical elliptical rotational pattern, all 4 weights reach one of their minor axis of the ellipse at the same time. 2 on the inside and 2 on the outside.

Each pair of opposing weights apply equal and opposite force at the same time canceling the forces. There wouldn't be any push/pull force that would be transferred.

This would seem to be done by necessity to eliminate destructive oscillation.

Alternately, if the opposing weights were 90 degrees out of phase, when one weight was being accelerated through the minor axis, the other would be midpoint and the force could then be transferred to that weight. And the oscillation would pass back and forth. However, you would need to compensate for the out-of-balance situation.

[Dave Q]

William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

There is no need to attempt to replicate Mr Skinner's device to the last detail.
All that's required is an understanding of the principles involved.
Personally, I believe that they are basically very simple, and I've tried to illustrate them in my schematic drawing.
It is very easy to make an off-centre pivoted weight revolve around its axis.
When the weight is mounted on an inclined shaft, the axis of the shaft only needs to be lifted from its "rest" position, and gravity will apply a turning moment, or torque, via the weight, to the shaft.
The weight can be kept in motion either by turning the upper end of the shaft in a circle (large or small) with an elliptical drive arrangement, or by
simply oscillating a vertical shaft from side to side in its vertical plane.
When I first watched the 1939 movie clip, I noticed both of these methods in
use.
The upper weight being driven by a simple reciprocating drive, and the lower
weight, driven elliptically by the now rotating upper weight.
I have replicated this arrangement very easily with various Meccano models.

An interesting feature of this mechanism is the fact that loading the output drive shaft results in a gravitational response. In other words, if the system is unloaded, the rotating mass is simply acting like a flywheel, storing kinetic energy. Unloaded, the upper weight is chasing the lower.
However, when a load is presented to the output, the upper driving weight starts to overtake the lower weight. This increases the angle of lift and gravity lends a hand. The greater the degree of lift, the greater the gravitational torque produced.
I believe that the combination of leverage and gravitational torque are the keys to extracting over unity power from this device.
I will upload another video to youtube, which I hope will make things abundantly clear :-)

[goldpro]

An interesting feature of this mechanism is the fact that loading the output drive shaft results in a gravitational response. In other words, if the system is unloaded, the rotating mass is simply acting like a flywheel, storing kinetic energy. Unloaded, the upper weight is chasing the lower.
However, when a load is presented to the output, the upper driving weight starts to overtake the lower weight. This increases the angle of lift and gravity lends a hand. The greater the degree of lift, the greater the gravitational torque produced.
I believe that the combination of leverage and gravitational torque are the keys to extracting over unity power from this device.
I will upload another video to youtube, which I hope will make things abundantly clear :-)

Dave,
That sounds to me very much like the way I understand Tesla's AC
motor works. When a load is applied to it the "slip" becomes greater and the current/amperage goes up and this creates a stronger magnetic field which applies more power and the motor speeds up to compensate for the applied load. All that happens in a fraction of a second I think.

Mike also mentioned this is how it works also.

Looking forward to that video.

Tom

[Dave Q]

I've just uploaded a video which I do hope will clarify things.
After all, a picture is worth a thousand words
This is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3l...ature=youtu.be

[Dave Q]

Thanks, Tom!!!

Professor Eric Laithewaite was vilified by his peers for demonstrating gyroscopic effects which appeared to contradict Newton.
As Laithewaite well understood, there was no contradiction, only a basic misinterpretation of the natural laws regarding the conservation of energy.
The late professor could see that the relationship between inertial and gravitational forces also applied to electricity and magnetism.

I had noticed this Skinner device effect as a youngster (1950's), and overlooked its potential. I had built a small machine which propelled itself by what I called "directional imbalance". (In contradiction to "every action has an equal and opposite reaction") I was interested to learn recently, that the good professor had built a similar device in his latter years.

[purelyprimitives]

Dave,

Thanks for the video. Yours, as well as others solidified my main concern about this device which is that it's possible to overload it and have it fall out of sync which is a show-stopper for me.

Best regards,
Charlie

[drak]

I've just uploaded a video which I do hope will clarify things.
After all, a picture is worth a thousand words
This is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3l...ature=youtu.be

Thank you!

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I've just uploaded a video which I do hope will clarify things.
After all, a picture is worth a thousand words
This is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3l...ature=youtu.be

Dave thanks for that demo, I think you have explained better than me, especially the fact that it is self regulating from free wheeling to being under load.

I hope you don't mind me saying a few things extra, seems you are an old time engineer like me, my years were the 70's up to now, I'm 63.

I have found that the top drive is very important, it seems you just have a simple lever movement, that works as you have demonstrated but it does not completly disconnect the center weight from the drive. In the main video of skinner at the 33sec mark, the motor is running but nothing moves, especially the levers, this was very important for me to understand what he had done at the top drive. He basicly only wanted a slight push into the system every 180 degrees and when not giving that push it was free wheeling as far as drive was concerned. See my drawing on how he did that, earlier I posted in this thread, that was self regulating as well, really quite clever.

The second thing is I don't think you have a gimbal system of support for that top lever, also the length ratio is important (LIKE ALL LEVERS USING AN OFFSET PIVOT POINT). Now I know with what you have you are showing basic principles and that is great, it helps all to understand what he was doing, please don't get me wrong on what I'm saying.

On my second drawing of the middle setup I showed that the top of the bottom shaft changes length and the system possibly used by Skinner. This is just an idea of mine, he also may have used a ball and socket, but for length movement it might have been freely bushed into the transition plate, I think both would do the same job, I think only you and I realised just what was happening at that point, without allowing for that the thing would jam up

I have not drawn the bottom section yet, it is coming, the CV joint is infact a ball hex joint, thats why you can't see it in the video. It is like the end of an allen key formed into a ball shape but maintaining the hex form on the ball, this goes into a female straight hex. There is not much angle at that drive point and this just might have been how he sync'd the four weights together and be able to use not chains but belts to the output drive (that is pure speculation, but logical).

More to come, and thanks again Dave, really well done

regards

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

This is the bottom drive C, please note the relation of the weights (position), they are in sync.

regards

Mike

[Dave Q]

William F Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

Thanks for your helpful information, Michael.

I'll be studying your drawings as soon as I've written this.
I've never been involved in on-line forums until now, and I must confess that I haven't spent time reading through or watching the material which has been posted.
It makes good sense to give the top drive a "nudge" only at the 180* point.
I can see that if the four assemblies were driven by a crankshaft with four 90* cranks, the only effort needed from the input motor would be to overcome the minimal bearing friction, as the 180* "lifting" moments would be completely balanced out.
I guess being produced the same year as the movie clip makes me an old engineer too
Again, my top lever is simply pivoted, not gimballed as the drive is perfectly linear. I'm familiar with the hexagonal ball joint, and in hindsight could have used a ball-end allen key and matching bolt instead of my Chinese CV joint.
I may well be wrong, but I'd surmised that the four assemblies would be connected at the base of the machine by geared shafting.
When I build a bigger version, I'll try to source a scrapped rear axle from a quad bike.
This will be lighter than a car axle and already has all the fittings needed
Thanks again for your input, Michael.

Regards,

Dave.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Your welcome Dave

Here for those that can't get their head around the shifting center of gravity relationship, a drawing, I hope it explains it.

regards

Mike

[purelyprimitives]

I have found that the top drive is very important, it seems you just have a simple lever movement, that works as you have demonstrated but it does not completly disconnect the center weight from the drive. In the main video of skinner at the 33sec mark, the motor is running but nothing moves, especially the levers, this was very important for me to understand what he had done at the top drive. He basicly only wanted a slight push into the system every 180 degrees and when not giving that push it was free wheeling as far as drive was concerned. See my drawing on how he did that, earlier I posted in this thread, that was self regulating as well, really quite clever.

I think this was discussed earlier and it was agreed that this would be a simple friction clutch so not to overload the motor from startup. You can see his hand on the actuator lever just after this.