William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[purelyprimitives]

nope unzipped it and would not play...finally converted it to mov.

OK, now I'm confused. You said you couldn't open it because it was an Apple file. But now you've converted it to a .MOV file which is a Quicktime video format which is....an Apple format.

[artoj]

Quick Post

Hi all, I have drawn most of the hidden bits, here is a sketch of the top part of the wobble axle. There is a spring within the hollow bar, it presses against a lubricated bearing surface that presses against the ball, this allows free motion in all directions with a tolerance that is adjustable by the pressure of contact. To stop the unit flying out the 4 rods are attached to the top and bottom metal disc, the adjustment and tightening is the center disc. The bottom is the same as the top. I have redrawn all the parts very carefully with complete measurements, I will post the whole lot on my blog as soon as it is completed. Regards Arto.

[Aaron]

sping loaded lower shaft?

On my video - as stated, it is only a zip with a mp4 in it that should play on just about anything.

@Artoj - I've been watching the progress of all of this, but where does the idea come from that the lower shaft is spring loaded below the connection to the coupler plate?

I saw someone mention elsewhere that when Skinner pushes the upper weight, it looks like it is spring loaded, but with the mechanism that I have, it will do the exact same thing.

I'm also surprised that people are still wondering how the input lever is moved - its right there in front of everyone! lol it's not a mystery - there is a big cross bar that goes back and forth and on the ends of it are a rotating "blade" or wheel that the input lever is guided by that causes it to rotate in a very narrow ellipse like I show in the video.

I see the conversation elsewhere practically demanding that the input lever moves in a "perfect circle" etc... do you think they are misunderstanding what is in front of their faces or do you think it is an attempt to distract from the obvious? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything, but it's downright ridiculous! lol

Also, someone is conveniently acting like they don't know what has already been shown here although they do and I'll leave their name out.

[eltimple]

i made the gimbals becuase i can lock one axis up and do the back and forth wobble...as well as explore other modalities

spring loaded..that has got me too

Yes Aaron i agree..they are demanding that the lever moves in a circle...I seem to have been caught in the crossfire on this. But the fact that there are 2 points of view on the same video is disturbing..Its almost like interviewing witnesses at a crime scene. Everyone has a different version of events. I have my own ideas , but will build rather than argue the toss..

the mp4 did not play on my copy of windows media player it was identified as apple..so i converted it online to avi..not a big deal.

anyway i have components for both systems so will measure both,

Both forums are getting quite agressive on this issue. My philosophy is to be open to suggestion and prove by experiment not debate.

[Netica]

Hi Aaron and All,

Just like to point out that I have carefully looked at the original video, and I find that the top rod is moving in a circular fashion.
The more I go over it the more positive I am of this particular point. Some parts of the video I think it gives the appearance of an ellipse, however I am quite certain it is a circular motion.
This is only my opinion, I might be wrong, but just trying to help in a positive way. I am not trying to mislead or distract.
Haven't built anything yet. People can try different methods anyway.
I am grateful Aaron that you have brought this forward to create interest.

netica

[velacreations]

does it really matter the path for the input lever?

[Aaron]

Skinner Machine input mechanism

Hi Aaron and All,

Just like to point out that I have carefully looked at the original video, and I find that the top rod is moving in a circular fashion.
The more I go over it the more positive I am of this particular point. Some parts of the video I think it gives the appearance of an ellipse, however I am quite certain it is a circular motion.
This is only my opinion, I might be wrong, but just trying to help in a positive way. I am not trying to mislead or distract.
Haven't built anything yet. People can try different methods anyway.
I am grateful Aaron that you have brought this forward to create interest.

netica

Thank you Netica,

The input motion we already had worked out over a year ago. Peter Lindemann was the first to bring it to my attention that the input lever looked like it was moving in a circle and upon closer inspection of the beginning of the original movie, it is completely obvious what is happening.

The video I posted here in the zip file is the front part of the moving looping - it cannot be any more clear what is happening. After the looping of that segment, I show why the input lever moves in an ellipse.

The top of the input lever is rotating on a blade or circle in a perfect circle - however, what people are simply not comprehending elsewhere is that the axis around which that circle or blade is revolving around is moving back and forth. The axis of rotation is CHANGING its position in space.

If anyone takes the time to trace it out, it is common sense and not even debatable what motion it is moving. I'm not saying this about your personal perception, just what I am reading elsewhere. The method of movement that I show in the video in the zip is 100% correct.

If you take a wheel and turn it and you mark one spot on its surface away from the center axis and it moves roughly 180 degrees while the center of axis is moving in a straight line for x distance and then it moves back the other direction the same distance and the wheel moves 180 degrees more...you will see that the point has just move in an ELLIPSE.

That is crystal clear without even needing to see close ups of the lever from two points of view to wonder if they're moving in circles or not. The entire mechanism is completely visible - the place where the upper part of the lever attaches. Everyone should be able to see the rod moving back and forth like a washing machine agitator but it is shaped like a long bar going across the machine - at the end of that bar are little wheels or blades that the top of the input lever is attached to and those spin around while the agitator oscillating back and forth changes the axis of rotation in space creating an elliptical orbit for the top of the input lever.

Look at the last segment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolNozy8UEY starting at 35:50

Anyone can download this zip and watch the looped part in the beginning to see what I'm talking about. http://feelthevibe.com/free_energy/s...upperinput.zip

I've said from the beginning of my explanations about the back and forth mechanism of the translation coupler causing it to rotate in an ellipse and I have said it is mostly a back and forth movement with a little bit of up and down motion (elliptical) - it is mostly long ways with a bit of width meaning it is an elliptical orbit.

I think anyone that is pushing the circular argument - pun intended - is intentionally trying to spread disinformation to keep people from understanding this machine.

[Aaron]

elliptical orbit absolutely necessary

does it really matter the path for the input lever?

Yes - it needs to be elliptical. I have worked out multiple ways to cause the input lever to be moved in an ellipse at the top but keep coming back to Skinner's method as being the best.

In a circular orbit, you get no real reversal or reaction.

With an elliptical orbit, you get a strong one every 180 degrees - at each end of the length - but instead of that reactive power bucking the system, it actually propels it forward.

This machine is a mechanical version of Jim Murray's SERPS machine in principle but it applies to every machine that takes a reaction and uses it to continue to produce work in the forward direction instead of resisting the production of work.

Newton's 3rd law of motion is always misunderstood and claimed to be an equal and opposite reaction when in reality, the truth is that the forces are divided between two reference points.

For anyone that isn't caught up in dogmatic myths, there is no equal and opposite reaction in both elliptical mechanism in the machine thereby violating Newton's 3rd law of motion the way it is commonly taught because if it applied, each half cycle of the ellipse would buck against the forward motion but it doesn't - it assist the machine in the forward direction.

It is mechanical jujitsu - using a force that could be in opposition to you but you allow for a method to let it help the progress continue in its same direction. The SERPS machine is electrical jujitsu.

This is the same in the Ramos machine and the Veljko machine as well as mechanical amplifiers designed by Peter Lindemann and some that I've even come up with myself. It is a universal principle that applies to EVERY mechanical machine that turns reactive power into positive work in positive time.

So yes, absolutely, it needs to be an elliptical path as a circle will only cause equilibrium in the machine and that is what we want to stay far away from.

[velacreations]

I thought the force came from the translation plate, not the input lever. Just like the disconnect from the bottom portion, the movement of the top portion is just to keep the bottom portion in the "always falling" situation. The exact path of that lever would be irrelevant, because it's not in lock step with the rest of the machine.

[eltimple]

I think the expression you are looking for is "Orbital Ellipsograph"

I think this may explain what you are trying to say ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3kqxyDjuBo&feature=kp

this being the rotation imparted to the shafts right up at the top.. Ellipse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

now if you had one of those guiding the shaft around just imagine

[Aaron]

input mechanism force

I thought the force came from the translation plate, not the input lever. Just like the disconnect from the bottom portion, the movement of the top portion is just to keep the bottom portion in the "always falling" situation. The exact path of that lever would be irrelevant, because it's not in lock step with the rest of the machine.

The first force in the Skinner machine is the electric motor, which is mechanical work to turn pulleys by belts to move the mechanism that rotates the input lever in an elliptical motion. The whole machine has multiple levels of leveraging leverage so to speak.

That motor doesn't need to supply very much work to turn the top of the lever around in an elliptical way because the pivot is way down at the bottom of that level - with let's say 90% of the length of the lever above the pivot, very little is needed because of the mechanical advantage of the length of the lever.

“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” - Archimedes quotes (Mathematician and inventor of ancient Greece, 280-211bc)

That is probably one of a hundred variations of that quote but that's the point.

The bottom of that "input lever" connected to the translation coupler with coupler freely spinning around it serves as the center axis of rotation for BOTH the upper weight fixed to that coupler plate and the upper part of the lower shaft connected the the coupler plate, which also spins freely from the coupler plate. They both rotate in perfect circles around the bottom of the input lever. But they of course go in an elliptical orbit because that center of axis (bottom part of input lever) for both the upper weight upper part of the lower shaft is moving in the same ellipse as the upper part of the input lever, but just inverse but in the same direction of rotation.

The force imparted by the bottom of the lever to move that part of the translation coupler causes a reaction in the upper weight to whip around in the same direction that the input lever is going - like I showed in the graph paper demo (coupler plate demo - not the upper input mechanism demo). That reaction is possible because of the specific placement of the input lever on the plate in relation to the upper weight placement and lower shaft placement on the plate as well. If the upper weight was on the other side or if the lever was turned in the opposite direction, you lose the effect and try to run the machine backwards.

So the force that gets the upper weight to swing around is directly from the input lever. Once it gets going, it obviously has momentum and when up to speed, the input lever only has to make up for the loss on each rotation, which is almost nothing with no load and still only a small percentage under load.

As the upper weight moves together with the small input of the lever just to maintain that momentum, the lower shaft's upper part follows it and the center of gravity for the lower weight is constantly moved so it has to constantly fall to the new center of gravity, which it can't catch up to.

Now look at the whole vertical drive as one unit. The lower shaft and weight are held slightly off center by being held in the translation coupler and that translation coupler is held in place by being connected to the bottom of the input lever. If the input lever is perfectly vertical, it will be perfectly over the bottom part of the lower shaft where the output is. However, although they are in alignment when centered, the lower weight is not because it is off center and an angle dictated by the lower shafts upper connection distance from the lever rod.

If no force was given by the input lever, no matter how small is being input to it at the very top, the whole machine would slow down so it absolutely contributes it's force to whip the upper weight, which whips the lower shaft around.

Going back to looking at the whole vertical drive assembly, that lower weight is is only a few inches from being balanced...not balanced by the lower shaft being vertical of course, but by having the lower weight angled back instead of tipping forward.

Of course tipping it back would just cause it to freespin around until it is on the incline of the shaft, but we're looking at where is the center of gravity for the mass of the lower weight and shaft and that is what is important. seeing that they are close to being balanced, it doesn't take much force to rotate it with this mechanism. Once it is up to speed, the mass is spinning around, which is not locked to the shaft where it is connected to the translation coupler, but it is locked to the part of the shaft that goes out the bottom to pull work from.

That mass spinning around will create some serious torque and it doesn't take much to get that mass spinning. The bigger the mass, the slower it has to go to produce the same amount of torque. If we had a lower weight the size of a school bus, it could go so slow that at only a couple rotations per minute but would snap a crowbar like a toothpick.

Once the system is synchronized and everything is spinning away, all the momentum of the lower weight and upper weight relieve the input requirement on the input lever so only the loss has to be made up.

Input lever force to kick translation coupler > translation coupler gets this force and helps to kick the upper weight around > that helps to move the shaft to move the lower weight around.

I do want to comment on some comments I've seen. Some say it is not gravity, it is the centrifugal force of the lower weight - some are saying it is only gravity, etc... it is all of them combined.

The weight spinning has some serious forces but gravitational potential energy is constantly being turned into rotational mechanical work at the lower weight so it is a combination of both in addition to the input from the input lever. If gravity does not contribute, you then have a closed equilibrium system that is solely reliant on the input to the lever for it's source potential and it would have no gain.

[Aaron]

Sun, Earth, Moon

The relationship of the upper weight to the lower weight shaft is like the MOON and EARTH. The Earth rotates on its own axis while the Moon does not. However, as the Earth moves through space once around its axis of rotation around the SUN (lever), the moon has made one rotation. In a year is a day and the Earth goes around the Sun one time per day, the Moon has spun 360 degrees in that one day while all the time showing it's same side to the Earth.

If you took a string with a weight on the end, held it out and turned in a circle, the string would stretch out and the weight would go out and be held by the string. As you turned around in circles on your own axis, the same side of the weight is facing you so to you it is not rotatig on its own axis, however, with each one rotation you make on your own axis, the weight (moon) has indeed revolved 360 degrees in space.

I don't want to get too much into all of that right now, but something to think about. The whole Skinner mechanism is like the Sun, Earth and Moon where it takes one day for the Earth to revolve around the Sun and the Moon always stays in the same position relative to the Earth and Sun like the 3 points of a right angle triangle and the hypotenuse is from the Sun to Moon and the right angle is at the Earth..

Not a perfect analogy but the principles are all there.

I posted a link to an article by Tesla that goes over some of this.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Modern day system of the same?

I came across this patent application, it seems on the outset that the principle is very similar, here is the patent

Patent US20130047754 - Mechanical advantage machine - Google Patents

I have not yet fully thought about this yet (the patent), but the system for power generation of this thread is very doable, it is as of yet the most promising free energy machine if looped, and why not.

regards

Mike

PS. I note at the moment on other forums as well as here, the normal people who feed on putting things down, really have stayed away, I wonder why!!! maybe they don't really have an argument against it

[Michael John Nunnerley]

It seems that the basic principle is the same, that is moving the center of gravity reference to a mass and not the mass itself, the moving of the center of gravity taking a lot less energy than can be obtained from the falling mass, and that is OU with no counter argument "as of yet"

I think the idea had been foregotten, especially with no internet and at that time cheap oil. Being an engineer of 63 years, I am really quite excited by this, as of yet I have not found a fault in how it works, really something so simple few have thought about it, I take my hat off to Mr. Skinner

With modern day means of fabrication, a reasonably cheap generation unit could be made, and improved upon. The only thing against it at the moment is possibly it's size, but there again in the basement of a home with a small DC motor to start it up off a battery, would not be a problem, the battery being maintained by the generator.
I think also it could be made to run very quietly, certainly no more than a diesel generator.

Keep up the good work guy's, I think we have a winner here

regards

Mike

[artoj]

Center Section

Hi All, regarding the spring loaded lower wobble shaft(WS), the action reminded me of some a the parts I have supplied for some old devices I had supplied some bearings to about 20 years ago, it had a very delicate torque requirement, very light about 100 grams force or it would break the product otherwise, we opted for swivel joints that we spring loaded, this would give low counter force when its balance was upset and would not force lock the mating surfaces and begin frictional torque actions, it proved a success. When I first seen the WS in action it looked as though the frictional torques had been removed by a end device design of some sort, or acted like a gravity center guide that had a small possible variable length.

I have help thousands of engineers and designers complete the details of their material needs of their production machines, each machine has hundreds of moving and swiveling parts, they just need to be orchestrated correctly so the input requirements aren't too demanding. With the Skinner Device he used what was available and used his knowledge of machine design with that of orbital mechanics to reduce the input and gain leverage within a system, Aaron is correctly stating, if you only use circular motion, you will end up with what you started with added losses, no matter how hard you try. Nature does not use perfect circles.

Only by understanding the translation of circular to elliptical can you start to engineer the bifurcation of forces that will give you a chaotic equilibrium, which is the first design nature uses in all its works. All natures ellipses are perturbed, so you must design a system that begins with a circle, creates an ellipse then use the nature to allow a natural perturbation, this will give you what I refer to as Egg dynamics, The nature in the Skinner machine is his great understanding of counter forces and the decoupling from all stages until both spinning and gravity add to the imbalanced dynamic.

I am glad to see everybody taking a great interest in this machine and some of the geometry involved. The debate of the top mechanism, is simple to resolve, apply all possible solutions then a consensus can be gained. In my way of thinking, you cannot actually see the mechanism, so as I have done, I came up with many solutions, and will slowly discard those that will not function to give me the best results, less friction, correct actions to maximize the perturbations of elliptical cycles that will always give you 2 or more centers of gravity. This can be done by physical experiments or by mental gymnastics and a good general knowledge of all the multiple problems involved. I have chosen the second route, as I have had 30 years of solving difficult machine friction and design problem on a daily basis, with the parts supply and supporting the needs of a diverse range of the experienced and highly technical engineers of both the new and old school and hands on machines builders.

The best out comes will be for all those involved as I am happy to share my experiences and knowledge with those who are interested. As I have said previously, I would be very happy to replicate skinners device as we have witnessed on video. Thanks to all the encouraging help from everybody, I am very close to solving all the details and materials lists, so if there are interested parties who live in Sydney, I am only an email away, or a bike ride.

Here is another page I have almost completed, The 13" shaft is not attached to the center pivot(CP) only the offset plate (OP). Regards Arto.