William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Before anybody says, that top drive is representive of the movement and not how to build it

regards

Mike

[purelyprimitives]

Asymmetrical in each quadrant is desirable and that is what is happening, but we don't want the inertial propulsion, we want all the output force to be concentrated into the output shaft and not to be dissipated in the whole machine moving across a floor.

I think you've just proved my point

If there is no inertial propulsion then there is no asymmetry. Agreed?

Opposite weight sets are constantly 180 degrees out of phase and as such, cancel each other out. How can this be otherwise?

Charlie

[purelyprimitives]

I really don't see how it can be logically argued to be a flywheel when the necessary parameters that are needed to be met are not even incorporated into the Skinner machine - not even in the slightest bit.

The commonly accepted definition of a flywheel is simply a rotating mass that stores kinetic energy. Its typically balanced and symmetrical.

Mr. Skinner's device is a rotating mass that stores kinetic energy. His overall system, is perfectly balanced and symmetrical.

Charlie

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Hi all

Well after a long talk of what is going on with this machine (three days) with a prof: who is 100 times more intelligent than me, not hard the machine works as an "ellipsoid of precession created by a permanently moving reference of space time coordinates" and comes down to "relativity".

His comment was in one word "brilliant"

I am now going to take an aspirin for my head

The other comment was that the bottom weights probably have been top end loaded for more torque, though they would work also if not weighted, but with less torque, my comment "interesting, they are probably tubes".

regards

Mike Cool

[purelyprimitives]

Not to be picky but I think you mean 'precession' not procession.


Charlie

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Not to be picky but I think you mean 'precession' not procession.


Charlie

Yes, a problem of speaking two languages, and mainly, day to day, not my native one

regards

Mike

[purelyprimitives]

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

[Aaron]

missing the point

I think you've just proved my point

If there is no inertial propulsion then there is no asymmetry. Agreed?

Opposite weight sets are constantly 180 degrees out of phase and as such, cancel each other out. How can this be otherwise?

Charlie

You are simply missing the point.

Each quadrant is asymmetrical on its own. With 4 poles, that asymmetrical force isn't cancelled out, it is focused to the common output.

[Cisco]

Clarification

His comment was in one word "brilliant"

Hi Mike,

When the prof said "brilliant", was he referring to the design configuration, the operation, or the results?

Cisco

[Aaron]

asymmetry within symmetry

The commonly accepted definition of a flywheel is simply a rotating mass that stores kinetic energy. Its typically balanced and symmetrical.

Mr. Skinner's device is a rotating mass that stores kinetic energy. His overall system, is perfectly balanced and symmetrical.

Charlie

You keep drifting off course.

Having 4 poles does not negate the asymmetry of each pole. Instead, it reinforces the need for the forces of each quadrant to be focused to the output instead of having any of it lost by trying to move the machine in one direction.

Asymmetry and symmetry can co-exist without them nullifying each other. It is really common sense.

Each lower weight will do EXACTLY what I said and it isn't even debatable. Even with 4 poles, each lower weight will STILL do EXACTLY what I said and having 4 poles does NOT negate that. Having 4 poles will NOT mysteriously cause the lower weights to rotate any longer than they would if it was a 1 pole machine.

You said you have 30 something years of engineering experience, but I don't see how that has any relevance when you keep harping on this irrelevant points that have nothing to do with what the machine actually does.

This is exactly what I said about the lower weight not being a flywheel and claiming that 4 poles suddenly balances the machine and makes it a flywheel is completely disingenuous.

"If the output is suddenly locked up - the lower weight will only swing around for a short period of time. As the lower shaft is locked in position and in its angle, there is the inside of the incline and the outside of the incline.

As the weight moves around towards the outside of the incline, it goes up against gravity losing some of its momentum and on its way back down, it picks up a bit, but the overall loss is greater than the gain meaning it is absolutely does not function as a flywheel. "If the output is suddenly locked up - the lower weight will only swing around for a short period of time. As the lower shaft is locked in position and in its angle, there is the inside of the incline and the outside of the incline.

As the weight moves around towards the outside of the incline, it goes up against gravity losing some of its momentum and on its way back down, it picks up a bit, but the overall loss is greater than the gain meaning it is absolutely does not function as a flywheel."

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ALL OF US - How does having 4 poles that keeps the machine from moving in one direction change the mechanics of how the lower weight rotates around it's shaft whether the machine is operating or not on each individual pole???

[Dave Q]

I must say that I'm amazed at all the on-going controversy over the operation of this device.

When I talk about a linear drive, I mean just that. Linear in the way a piston connected to a crankshaft reciprocates in a cylinder. As I have tried to demonstrate, there is absolutely no need for an elliptical upper drive.

I'm pleased to learn that the drawing did not come from Mr Skinner, and that my beady old eyes haven't let me down

I simply reproduced with Meccano, the mechanism which I can see displayed in the 1939 movie clip. The mechanism is ingenious, but there is nothing occult or mysterious about it. Because I have noticed the principles earlier in life, I recognised them in this application.

I confess that I didn't stop for a moment to consider the physics involved, I just built my first models the same day that my e-mail inbox brought me the link to the movie.

We can split hairs over the use of the words "weight" and "mass". The simple fact remains, that a 12oz lead sinker mounted on a fulcrum produces gravity induced torque when its fulcrum is rotated from the vertical to a horizontal position.

Any inclination of the supporting shaft from the vertical will produce a turning moment directly proportional to the angle of inclination.

When a rotating mass is rising, its effective weight is seen as inertial energy.
Rotating inertial energy is exactly what is needed to drive a machine.

Before I was aware of this most interesting forum, I had attempted to explain the operation of Mr Skinner's device to an on-line friend.

I used this analogy:

Take a bicycle. (The size, make, gender or colour doesn't matter )
Turn the frame on its side and rest it on a level surface above floor level.
Attach a lead weight to a front wheel spoke next to the rim.
Hold the handlebars vertical, then tilt them from side to side. Time the resulting movement to keep the wheel rotating. (If the mass weighs 16oz and the wheel radius is 18", it will take an effort of 1.5 foot lbs. to initially level the front wheel.)
The leaden mass is now following a rising and falling trajectory. The energy needed to reciprocate the pivot decreases as rotation speed rises. Each lifting moment, however small, adds momentum. Each downward tilt adds the impetus of gravity to the momentum of the mass.

This simple analogy explains the operating principle of both the upper and lower drives.
Although the reciprocating drive does become elliptical on my model, this is the result of the limitations of my design, which is less perfectly centred than a bicycle wheel between its forks.

The analogy is deduced. I don't own a bicycle.

I've just designed, but haven't yet built a reciprocating drive operated with a single frictionless bi-directional solenoid. The solenoids' operation will be timed electronically and its duration proportionally reduced as the rotation speed rises.
This arrangement should conserve input energy to an absolute minimum.

I'll post a video of two balanced reciprocated drives running a.s.a.p.

Regards,

Dave

[purelyprimitives]

This is mainly for Aaron.....

I do sincerely wish you success with this project.

Best regards,
Charlie

[Dave Q]

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

[Aaron]

4 pole vs 1 pole - flywheel vs no flywheel

This is mainly for Aaron.....

I do sincerely wish you success with this project.

Best regards,
Charlie

Thank you, but any question to whether the Skinner machine has any flywheel function or not in 1 or 4 pole structure is made obvious by answering the below question. Can you prove any flywheel function based on your statement simply because Skinner's machine had 4 poles? It doesn't change the mechanism of the lower weight's rotation in any quadrant.

Please answer the below question...

How does having 4 poles that keeps the machine from moving in one direction change the mechanics of how the lower weight rotates around it's shaft whether the machine is operating or not on each individual pole?

[Aaron]

Skinner machine

I must say that I'm amazed at all the on-going controversy over the operation of this device.

When I talk about a linear drive, I mean just that. Linear in the way a piston connected to a crankshaft reciprocates in a cylinder. As I have tried to demonstrate, there is absolutely no need for an elliptical upper drive.

I'm completely amazed that there is anything questionable about how the device operates.

But I do want to point out that just because the translation coupler can be completely operated in the linear fashion by the lever does not mean that there are no advantages to operating the lever in an elliptical fashion.