View Single Post
 
Old 07-11-2014, 09:01 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,011
William Skinner Gravity Power Machine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
My take is it is fixed to the plate, that is why the rod turns, it passes through the gimbal being able to rotate. It is this rotation that interreacts with the cam on that wheel, which in turn creates the movement of the lever.
Thanks Mike - you mentioned this before as well. I talked to Peter about this almost 2 years ago and did most of my testing with the lever free spinning in the coupler plate because that is just want I did in the beginning. This is the only thing that the jury is still out for me. I'm equally open to the lever being fixed or free turning in the plate. In the video, the lever looks like it rotates on its own axis and it other parts it does not. I think everyone just needs to do the experiments.

The mechanism is simpler if the lever is locked to the translation coupler. But if the upper weight somehow gets jammed the top of the machine will feel it unless as h2ocommuter brilliantly speculated, the thread may be a fuse that can easily tear in order to prevent damage.

If the lever free-spins in the translation coupler, we have one more level of disconnect. And if the upper weight gets jammed, it will not have the potential damage up top compared to if the lever was fixed to the plate.

@ALL,

This will probably be my last post in this thread - good luck everyone, I have said what I had to say - believe what you want about circle vs ellipse, etc...

One reason for 4 poles on Skinner's machine is not just for overall balance and symmetry, while each pole on it's own is still asymmetrical - it is to offer smoother torque through the 360 degress rotation of the collective output since it is essentially a pulsed mechanical motor with each opposing side out of phase with the other opposing sides.

I have said from the beginning I have conducted tests and will not post my results because I'm not making any energy claims but I see enough to know that I'm not wasting my time. Anyone posting that they're surprised that I have done tests at this point has not even read this entire thread and should do that immediately before making any further comments.

Please think for yourselves everyone - a sure sign that you need to watch out for someone is the moment they start telling you how many years of experience they have with such and such. It means absolutely NOTHING when it comes to interpreting non-equilibrium systems. Almost everyone's years of engineering experience is constrained to very conventionally operated systems.

The Skinner machine is a non-equilibrium (open dissipative system) and the opposition to the elliptical nature is prima facie evidence that they have no understanding of the difference. Sorry if this sounds rude, but it is common sense for those who actually know the difference. And if you are new to this and never heard of the difference, then you will be thanking me later by helping to prevent you from wasting a lot of time considering things that some people are throwing out here when they are not qualified to do so.

This machine does not output more energy than goes into it, more is produced than what we have to supply by the input power supply that rotates the levers. That means there is other input from somewhere else and is the obvious evidence that it is an open dissipative system. The other input is free environmental source potential in the form of gravitational potential energy.

So if we account for all the input in the form of the electrical motor and gravity and compare that to the total work done on the output, it will be under 100%... because there are losses involved with the bearings, etc. so there is still entropy. It is not over 100% efficient.

However, if we calculate the total work done and divide that by only what we have to supply, that is the coefficient of performance or COP and this machine is well over 1.0 COP. It will be over 100%, but that is not 100% efficiency, that is the COP so it is important to at least know these distinctions and I think or at least hope most people that have been following the free energy field for a while do know these distinctions.

A non-equilibrium open dissipative system is a system that does dissipate input potential through resistances as real work and as it tries to move it towards equilibrium, other environmental input is constantly coming in delaying (not preventing) it from coming into equilibrium so fast. Because equilibrium is delayed, more work can be done compared to what is input.

That is why it is a "non-equilibrium" system - it has a way to delay the equilibrium because it is OPEN to outside potential and thermodynamics actually does not apply and thermodynamics doesn't even apply to electricity either. It is all fluid dynamics and even gravity acts as a fluid.

A "circular" "gravity" system as has been discussed in this thread is an equilibrium system. The output is proportionate to the input because there is no usable external potential that can delay equilibrium because of this fixed proportionality between input and output.

Here is the Veljko system:



The input and output are not directly proportional to each other. If you held the large hammer to the anvil to stop its up and down movement, the input pendulum on the right will continue to swing until it winds down but does not bind up immediately telling us that there is a disconnect between the input driver and the output. Besides the input energy on the input pendulum, free environmental source potential comes in to slam the hammer down keeping the system from coming into equilibrium - a legitimate over 1.0 COP non-equilibrium open dissipative system just like Skinner's machine.

Here is what the conventionally minded people who have years of engineering experience and letters after their names have to say about it - they say it is no different than this:


The Veljko 2 State Oscillator has NOTHING in common with a grasshopper oil pump. If this pump was running and you were able to jam the output end, you will lock up the entire machine to the input. And if you jam the input, it will instantly lock the output. That is because the input and output are 100% directly proportionate to each other. Gravitational potential is completely negated by this fact and it cannot contribute to any more work done because the output is locked to the input. Therefore, this is an EQUILIBRIUM CLOSED system. It can only move towards equilibrium without any way to delay it from environmental input meaning it is automatically closed since no environmental input potential can enter the system.

The Skinner machine is to the circular machines
like the Veljko machine is to the Grasshopper oil pump

OPEN SYSTEM - Skinner & Vejlko
CLOSED SYSTEM - Circular gravity machine & grasshopper oil pump

@Garry,

I appreciate your comments but there are plenty of solutions for clean drinking water and low cost healthy food and a machine like this or even the SERPS isn't needed to solve those problems. The Veljko machine is already used in many poverty stricken areas to pump water for cheap. Here is a low cost solution to pull water out of the air Modern Day Air Well for Cultivating Water | A & P Electronic Media Digital Publishing by Aaron Murakami & Peter Lindemann has been used in different variations for thousands of years.

There is a low budget low tech solution to every problem in the world. It isn't an energy or technological problem, its psychological and a high percentage of the global governmental "leadership" are Grade A psychopaths. Until people are sick and tired of being sick and tired, we're pretty much stuck with what we have until we choose to make it better.

I don't think any of these technologies we've all worked so hard to move forward will be able to be used in any meaningful way until the dust settles after a really big global hiccup. So in the meantime, I think everyone needs to do their own experiments based on whatever information they feel compelled to follow and prepare for the worst but expect the best.

I don't hold the keys to anything. I've shared almost all my thoughts on this subject in this thread. I have some promising developments that were inspired by this machine but other than that, the operating of this machine is really straight forward.

I have a few ideas about all of this Skinner machine business but I have to get a lot of post-conference work done so let me think on it and I'd like to share more at some point.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 07-11-2014 at 09:03 AM.
Reply With Quote