View Single Post
 
Old 07-10-2014, 08:37 AM
deslomeslager deslomeslager is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5
I like brainstorming

I looked at the leg of the top-rod.
at t=35 seconds William grabs an iron part with his left hand, and the camera takes a nice front view of the machine.
I am zooming in on the left side of the machine (the side parallel to his left hand). The rod goes through the gimbal and you can clearly see the lower (piece of) the rod. Now remember, the machine has 4 quadrants, all with the same build. meaning: if you see a left quadrant piece and a 90 degrees next quadrant of that same piece, you have a view from both sides.
So now I review the same video part (I do a step by step view on my PC on a local file of course).
The camera pans down, and William walks away.
At that point you can watch that same piece from the right side.
If you go step by step, and count the frames and measure the distance it travels, you will see a sinusoidal movement, meaning it is elliptical.

I have read all the threads here, but I stick to what I see. And I use all opinions here to try and convince me otherwise as I try to be open to new input.

What I think I see:
1) the top consists of 4 round wheels, rotating in a circular fashion
2) the top-rod goes through a gimbal and below that gimbal is an opening in the steel (that opening is round as well, otherwise the rod would bump)
3) the top rod now enters a piece of steel, it looks like many drawings already shared here, and we have all seen it very clear. I do want to add that yuo can see this piece of steel tilting! The tilt shows that it is not mounted-fixed, and taht the top-rod attached to it is leaning forward constantly
4) The smaller weight is being turned round and round and actually driving the lower weight (in a loosely coupled or indirect fashion)
5) the bottom is circular as well

It is a device with 2 stages, the top stage has a weight which is tilted slightly so it keeps falling, this is stage one. The wight as well has inertia and stabilizes the movement for the weight below it. The second stage has one freedom more than the top movement, its axis can rotate more freely.

I have done some simple tests with a bucket and such (you have seen it). The hint of squeezing the bucket had a negative result, as the movement of the rod now is strongly opposed on the long sides! The mass does not want to start moving as there is an incredible amount of power needed to get it going. And if you start is manually, the non-circular movement is making the movement unstable.

I understand the idea behind an elliptical trajectory, as it makes us compare the movement with pushing a swing. But how does that idea fit in this device?

Aron, please do not respond to my opinions, you could say 'every view on this system is a view (opinion, impression) and people should read all opinions and may trust on their own intuition or science to determine their opinion.

I have some thoughts I need to share, I just forget to write them down .. ..
* if this device works (and I am sure it does, same for the John Device) then F=m*a applies. meaning: we can remove 'gravity' and use a strong spring which has a very constant tension as it is stretched over a certain length.
* and: even more: if it works with gravity or a spring, it will work with magnets as well. (in theory)

* I saw people writing about the calculations, 1200%. But if you read that news paper article then it describes William talking about an 'if' statement.
Line 1, I quote: "he believed the machine's principle could be carried to a point where a one-horsepower motor would provide electricity for a community of 3500 people at a total costs of only $5 a month"
Line 2, I quote: "Skinner estimates the "gravity power machine" would increase the horsepower motor about 1200 percent"
Line 3, I quote: a one horsepower, he believed, with a perfected "gravity power machine" to multiply its output, could be made to drive a generator large enough to produce electricity for 3500 persons (not households).
Being a programmer I clearly see an if statement
IF we had a one horsepower motor
AND we had a perfected "gravity power machine"
THEN we could have that output for 3500 people

What is not said here, is that Skinner adds up details
* a 1 HP motor can be increased to 1200% (12 times) its output
* a perfected "gravity power machine" must be created. His own device has 4 units, the perfect unit would have .. .. fill in the blanks .. .. perhaps 50 units

We should read between the lines.
Also: on a description on the internet was said Skinner drove his workplace for $5 a month. So 1 1/8 HP motor driving costs $5, and Skinner states a 1 HP motor driving costs $5 as well. I think the more often someones story is cited, the more it changes.

As I am not an engineer, I am hoping any input we share with each other helps each other to get to a replica.

O, not to forget, something I saw as well.
The editor left out a small part of the video (the mounting a rope and actually really starting the device).
We see Skinner push the button of the motor with his right hand, shutting it down. Then he removes the cotton wire. When the wire is removed he pulls a weight. Notice: the drive wheel (top left in the movie) is rotating. And the wheel increases speed as the weight gets closer. So this is the feedback via that small steel plate from the top weight to the top rod (shaft) and that wheel on top. Also check and see that the weight to his right now also starts to move (also the other one in the far end, but that is harder to see).
Next clip: the camera now shows a new setting, shot from the legs upwards, William pushes a weight once. Next clip: Hey: there is a ribbon on the motor now! So that last clip was made (minutes) later as the device is now running low speed (I counted 8 rotations and timed 8 seconds which is 60 RPM)

I would appreciate if we (here on the forum) would not try to convince people a writer here is wrong. No. I would appreciate if we all just share our thoughts. So if we would not use words like 'xx is wrong'. There is not working or right, there is no one here that actually has seen the device. We don't have Nikola with us who can see a device like this working in his head. We need to TRY replicating in as many ways we can. Does it bother if we make a device not working? No. I uploaded my silly demo just to show anybody can do some tests. And the best part of it: dong that test convinces me this device is for real. So who reads this: if you need motivation, just build a simple version, all you need to feel is the additional power you get from tilting the shaft.

One more thing I am thinking of. If you spin up a bicycle wheel, and try to change the position of the axis (wheel vertical, axis horizontal, try and move the axis up and down), you will notice it takes a lot of effort to get this done. But if you have the axis in two hands, and you now start making circles with your hands, the wheel looks to slow done in rotation and there is almost no inhibition anymore. (second part is off-topic). So a rotating mass will try to keep moving the same (horizontal, rotating) path. In addition: spinning that wheel, if I hold the left hand still and rotate with the right hand I feel a counter force. So keeping one side fixed does this. If both hands rotate (like pedaling a bicycle, one hand goes up, other goes down) then the wheel follows with almost no counter force. I see a direct relation of this knowledge to the Skinner device.

Sorry I am posting all in one. I like brainstorming, and I hope there are people who think the same.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote