William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[MagnaMoRo]

An easy way.

Many may have already seen this, but I thought I would post it here anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN79z_TndI8

[shylo]

top half

Hi Mag, To me that is just the top half of the skinner device.
The rim is basically the transition plate..?
By adding the lower half I think multiplies the input even more.
I'll be getting back to this in the spring ,since my build is outside.
May even be able to add more stages.
First time I seen that vid Thanks
art

[homenergy1]

Disappointed

I find it instructive that the moderator of this thread tells some members they almost have it right. In several phrases like this he speaks as if he has successfully built a machine that converts the force of gravity into useable torque without having to input the same or greater force. In other words that he has achived a gravity powered overunity machine.
And yet no celebration, no diagrams, no offering of hey guys here it is let's all make these for the benefit of all the world. The last phrase would be the appropriate response of a good hearted individual, a Tesla like individual as opposed to a J.P. Morgan type.
And yet this thread seems all but abandoned.
I have decided to abandon my efforts in building this machine. Although several have made videos explaning how "simple" it is. The actual forces involved are so extreme that construction is far beyond my resources. I am speaking of the mechanical forces on the transition plate as an example.
The top mass is 21kg. Thats about 52 lbs. The leverage of that weight is produced with iys distance of about 10 1/2 inches from the upper input shaft and the top of the lower shaft being about 1/2 inch away. This woild place an upward force of 420 lbs. On the input shaft.
No I can't build a machine with such extreme requirements. And it looks like no one else has done it either.
Tah tah and cheerio fellows.

[shylo]

All I can say is "never give up"
artv

[MagnaMoRo]

I have decided to abandon my efforts in building this machine. Although several have made videos explaning how "simple" it is. The actual forces involved are so extreme that construction is far beyond my resources. I am speaking of the mechanical forces on the transition plate as an example.
The top mass is 21kg. Thats about 52 lbs. The leverage of that weight is produced with iys distance of about 10 1/2 inches from the upper input shaft and the top of the lower shaft being about 1/2 inch away. This woild place an upward force of 420 lbs. On the input shaft.
No I can't build a machine with such extreme requirements. And it looks like no one else has done it either.
Tah tah and cheerio fellows.

I studied the 1939 Video very carefully, in slow motion. I new from that moment that IF the machine really is capable of producing "torque amplification" THEN it isn't necessary to build an exact duplicate of that large machine to achieve the effect. I also realized that their should be nothing special about having 2 stages just to achieve the effect. For one should be able to achieve an amplification effect from either stage IF it works at all.

If it does work then we are looking for the simplest way to achieve the effect.

On the other hand, what I have discovered on the first stage is that as output resistance is applied, this causes the rotating mass to lift and to go behind phase of the top end rotation, and this does indeed require more input torque.

So, how was William able to peal off 1/4" ribbons of steel with just 1/8 horse power motor? Well, I did take note that his ribbon peal bar was turning significantly slower than his input motor. So, it could have all just been an elaborate illusion pulled off by cleaver use of ratios.

But, I won't give up until an accurate input to output torque ratio is taken.

[Aaron]

Skinner details

I have mentioned Skinner used another machine (he had more than one) to machine landing gears for planes during the war.

There was not one single comment or question to me about how I know that.

[BroMikey]

New to me

I have mentioned Skinner used another machine (he had more than one) to machine landing gears for planes during the war.

There was not one single comment or question to me about how I know that.

Hi Aaron

I am new to all of this but I do watch everything you are doing and have shown about this wobbling mechanical device. I have often taken shovels by the handle and spun them with the palm of my hand. Other things to. I was always struck by how easy I could keep some of them going by a tiny movement like a jerky motion to keep it going.

Sometimes it would be a huge piece of steel. I never thought about making it into something usable. But like I said I have noticed how little energy it takes to keep heavy object spinning.

How did you know about the big airplane gear setup? Also are you still advancing with your last setup? Or are you replacing it, or what, I have not seen you post lately. I have more question about another experiment you did and a DVD with the information on it I got from you, but I'll ask you about that some other time on another post somewhere.

The reason I asked is because it seems like you have more to add about this device.

It is good to see you. I know the new site is a bunch of work so let me say thank you for that and pass it along to the other guys for me.

Mike

[homenergy1]

Ok I'll bite.

Well so Aaron, Skinner had another machine and you kmow about it. So if someone asked you how you know about it would your answer shed light on whether the Skinner machine actually can produce overunity? If yes then why wait for the question? If no, then why mention it?
Its possible that with 680 pounds of spinning mass the momentum alone would shave metal, for a while. The above suggestion that it is just a matter of ratio indicates why some people can't discern when a thing is conventional or drawing in additional power.
I don't want to make anyone feel bad. But I do look for candor. Who was that Greek who went around carrying a lantern? If people asked him why he would say he was looking for an honest man.

[Aaron]

Skinner Gravity Power

I've been in contact with William F. Skinner's family for a long time and they are thrilled that awareness about his work is getting out there. Skinner got screwed over by crooked business partners and an attorney way back and was put through the wringer as is the common story. He came up against a lot of retaliation by many "experts" who tried to debunk it but couldn't. It is a very high COP overunity machine as described in the video from British Pathe. We can't verify if the COP was as high as was mentioned or was lower, etc. but it's irrelevant. The machine, in principle, does what is claimed.

Skinner had another machine at his home that he used to power a smaller shop that he used to machine landing gears for the Army Air Core or whatever the military branch would have been at the military base near Miami way back then.

Basically, I have accurately laid out his whole machine from the beginning with the following couple things as exceptions...

1. We cannot verify if the upper lever is indeed pinned to the translation coupler with a set screw - experiments will tell.

2. The "always falling" I mentioned was that the lower weight always fell to the inside incline of the lower shaft and that is accurate. However, another always falling is the fact that when the lower shaft is rotating in an elliptical orbit, which is required, the height of the lower weight does change. It is at the hightest point at the CENTER OF THE ELLIPSE and is and falls towards the EDGES of the elongated parts of the ellipse away from the center - it is at the lowest so it does change height. I did however spell out this fact towards the end of this thread but did not realize this at the beginning of this thread. Neither point seems to be of much interest to anyone.

Anyway, that is how I know about the other machine and more that is not pertinent to the operation of the machine and this will probably be the last input that I will give on this project. When I see others using a mechanism to rotate the upper shaft in an elliptical orbit like I've been doing, I'll be more interested.

It was great to see so many people playing with different aspects of the machine, but all the circular input for the input lever is a limitation and brings the machine into equilibrium.

My interest at this point personally is to see if Jim Murray would be interested in giving a serious analysis of it because he is probably the most qualified to understand it mathematically and otherwise. Personally, I'm not too interested in the math, but validating the principles of operation that have been laid out here quite a few times.

Gravitational potential is being converted to work in this machine and I accept that as an indisputable self-evident fact, the disconnects are absolutely required so that the output is not proportionate or directly connected to the input, etc.

[MagnaMoRo]

...the lower shaft is rotating in an elliptical orbit, which is required, the height of the lower weight does change. It is at the hightest point at the CENTER OF THE ELLIPSE and is and falls towards the EDGES of the elongated parts of the ellipse away from the center - it is at the lowest so it does change height. I did however spell out this fact towards the end of this thread but did not realize this at the beginning of this thread...

Hi Aaron,

No offense, but in an earnest effort to understand what is going on, I have studied the video very carefully. I have 21 Video Frames for a full rotation, the first 12 of which are displayed bellow. It does not look like an ellipse to me, on either stage. It looks like a circular orbit. Ill keep working at it though!

[Aaron]

elliptical orbit

Hi Aaron,

No offense, but in an earnest effort to understand what is going on, I have studied the video very carefully. I have 21 Video Frames for a full rotation, the first 12 of which are displayed bellow. It does not look like an ellipse to me, on either stage. It looks like a circular orbit. Ill keep working at it though!

Examine the cross bar mechanism that actually rotates the upper mechanism and it becomes self evident. I posted a full description of what is happening there a few times in this thread.

[MagnaMoRo]

Examine the cross bar mechanism that actually rotates the upper mechanism and it becomes self evident. I posted a full description of what is happening there a few times in this thread.

Ok! I'll let the evidence speak.
Bellow, for the sake of the open source community, I have taken the time to use 20 consecutive frames of the original video and reassembled them into a continuously looped animated .gif image. This allows us to have the best currently available view of the overall machine in action. I have used GIMP to assemble the animation.

Motion picture film was subject to image positioning inconsistencies. So, for stabilization purposes, I have ONLY and as-best-I-could, adjusted the positioning and scaling of the frames to allow for inconsistencies in the original filming.

May all interested study it well and enjoy!

[h2ocommuter]

Circular Vr. elliptical and linear

Ok! I'll let the evidence speak.
Bellow, for the sake of the open source community, I have taken the time to use 20 consecutive frames of the original video and reassembled them into a continuously looped animated .gif image. This allows us to have the best currently available view of the overall machine in action. I have used GIMP to assemble the animation.

Motion picture film was subject to image positioning inconsistencies. So, for stabilization purposes, I have ONLY and as-best-I-could, adjusted the positioning and scaling of the frames to allow for inconsistencies in the original filming.

May all interested study it well and enjoy!

@MagnaMoRo, Hi!
I find your post precisely how I observe it. I find no evidence of linear or elliptical within the video of the machine at work.

Their are other pictures that would make many observation much more difficult to properly interpret but they are NOT a working model fully pictured in toto.
I am not saying these other models did not work. But they are not a model "at work" to visually understand the perspectives in action.

I too have examined the model in operation and also am convinced the first fulcrum to be circular in fact. No matter how factual I observe all its primary fulcrums I find only one that clearly depicts a circular movement. This is all I need in way of conviction. My vision is mine and my conviction is also mine. I don't need anyone telling me not to be dedicated to my own observation and convictions.

I am still building mine in the shop, and am looking at the fulcrum analysis to gauge the height of my machine.

What are your thoughts about these ratios?

[artoj]

Circles and Lines

Hi, simple machines can make complex paths, just by combination, elliptical paths made from linear and circular guides. Regards Arto.

[Aaron]

Skinner machine uses an elliptical orbit, period.

It's right there in front of you. You're looking at it but you don't see it.

I showed you the mechanism in my videos.

You can see the cross bar that goes from the front of the machine - the quadrant closest to the camera and it goes to the back of the machine. It is NOT just going back and forth (left and right).

Well, THAT crossbar is going back and forth (left and right) in a normal oscillation, but what is at the END of that crossbar that the upper input lever is connected to? IT'S RIGHT THERE and that tells the whole story. If you don't see the extra little bar or wheel at the ENDS of the crossbar spinning around independently of the main crossbar, then I'm at a loss for words. I have multiple confirmations by the way so to me, it isn't even debatable but you and others are of course free to believe what you think you see or think you don't see.

Look at the end of the crossbar closest to the camera, you can even see the little white streak going from the right to the left on each rotation of the arm/wheel moving independently of the main crossbar. From a bird's eye view, it is rotating clockwise.

That light streak is NOT some camera imperfection from an old video camera, you are seeing the piece that rotates independently of the main crossbar and that is what the upper shaft is connected to. Examine the FULL movement of it and the upper shaft is rotating in an elliptical orbit.

Your animated gif is clear enough to see it as plain as day.

You can even see it on the rear mechanism furthest from the camera at the back of the machine. Right when the input lever starts to go right, you can see that independently moving arm swinging around and you see a black looking rectangle shape showing that it is more of a bar than a wheel. And when it goes to the left, the opposite side of that little bar swings to the right.

The upper part of the input lever is NOT fixed in place relative to the main oscillating crossbar.

Goto 34:50 of this video:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolNozy8UEY[/VIDEO]

Ok! I'll let the evidence speak.
Bellow, for the sake of the open source community, I have taken the time to use 20 consecutive frames of the original video and reassembled them into a continuously looped animated .gif image. This allows us to have the best currently available view of the overall machine in action. I have used GIMP to assemble the animation.

Motion picture film was subject to image positioning inconsistencies. So, for stabilization purposes, I have ONLY and as-best-I-could, adjusted the positioning and scaling of the frames to allow for inconsistencies in the original filming.

May all interested study it well and enjoy!