No announcement yet.

William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Danny B
    independent upper shafts

    Originally posted by gotoluc View Post
    Hi Aaron,

    I posted the picture below at the OU topic on June 14th (some weeks after I had noticed this) if you look closely the upper levers position in the translation plate is not in line with the lower shaft.


    This picture brings up an interesting observation. Skinner moves the top weight which rotates the upper shaft. It moves very easily. BUT, how can you rotate just one of the four shafts. The device must be synchronized so that the 4 weights don't crash. The bottom shafts are locked together because there is only one output shaft. The translation plate is locked to the upper shaft and, floats against the lower shaft. But, for Skinner to move one upper weight independently, the 4 upper shafts must be able to rotate independently, Rotation only, NOT position.
    If you look at the upper shaft on my machine, I just have the shaft floating freely in an open hole. It's position is controlled but, not it's rotation. It rotates only because the lower weight is constantly falling. This forces rotation. Same for the lower weight / shaft.
    So, if Skinner can rotate a weight independent of the other 3 weights / shafts, what kind of a setup would be needed for creating an elliptical orbit and, still allowed the shaft to rotate freely?

    Leave a comment:

  • Danny B
    Not yet?

    Various people have said that they were going to build a big / quad machine. Somebody said that they were going to build a model quad..
    So, what happened? Where are the builds?
    I can post all the dimensions. It's up to you to design the top-shaft movement.
    I'm still trying to give my machine away to a new home.

    Leave a comment:

  • h2ocommuter
    eccentric forces

    I totally agree, there is no connection whatsoever between the spinning masses, it would be a complete failure of logic to propose it is balanced. however a limited amount of eccentric force can be stabilized within the framework.

    Leave a comment:

  • Danny B
    I see that the debate is raging on. Somebody should just build a full size QUAD machine and find the answer. It is incorrect to claim that this machine is balanced. It runs balanced as a quad machine but, it has enormous strains on the frame work. I used 3/4 inch bolts to attach the machine to a big cement block building. I have over 300 lbs spinning eccentric. This is much heavier than the Skinner machine,,, as a single, not quad.
    BTW, as the machine speeds up, the upper weight rotates in a larger diameter orbit than it did at slow speed. It makes quite a crash when it hits the frame.

    Leave a comment:

  • Danny B
    That's very interesting work. It would require 12 gears and 8 arms.

    Leave a comment:

  • goldpro
    Here's a link to an interesting video that may shed some more light on the
    Skinner machine.


    Leave a comment:

  • Aaron
    Skinner Gravity Machine has an Elliptical Orbit

    Watch this video full screen. Read the comments on the video. It is so obvious I'm surprised only MJN is the only other one who gets it. Actually, someone building a full scale model that I'm collaborating with does get it.


    The elliptical motion is necessary to make the weights oscillate back and forth.

    Leave a comment:

  • Aaron
    Skinner Machine elliptical orbit

    The mechanism in the original video clearly shows a small piece rotating at the very end of the oscillating arm meaning the orbit is elliptical. MJN is the only other one that actually gets it and he posted his diagram of it.

    In circular motion, it is nothing but a pure equilibrium machine that will never get a gain. In elliptical motion, the weight changes height and that is where gravity comes into the system to do work - that is not happening with a circular orbit.

    This is how the upper level is rotated in elliptical motion and you can see it in the video - it isn't a matter of anyone's opinion - it is right there in the original video:
    Last edited by Aaron; 04-09-2018, 01:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Danny B
    Mechanical movements

    Les Banki, "So far, I seem to be the only one here who has actually BUILD something"
    How about that?
    Aaron, "All claims the top input is circular are false and misleading."
    I have to disagree with both of these statements.
    The upper weight sits at 90 deg. of rotation offset from the lower weight. At zero load, this 90 deg spacing is maintained. The bottom point of the lower weight sits at the lowest point of a tilted semi-circle. As the output shaft at the center of rotation is loaded, the weight tries to climb up the ramp,,, 1/2 of the tilted semi-circle. The lower weight is trying to fall to the lowest point on the 90 deg. ramp. The load is trying to force it to climb the ramp.
    Centrifugal force is trying to force outwards the top of the lower weight. It is actually trying to force outward the whole weight but, the top of the weight has the most leverage. This leverage is seen as downforce on the end of the aluminum bar. The faster it spins, the greater downforce against the ramp.

    The lower weight can only fall against the ramp. It can't be driven. The downward pressure exerted by the weight is seen only as weight, not, rotation. The top of the lower shaft is rotated but, decoupled from the rotation of the lower weight.
    The upper weight only positions the lower weight, it doesn't drive it. It must free-fall. The lower shaft describes a fixed circle as long as the lower weight remains at the bottom of the ramp. As the output shaft is loaded, the weight climbs part way up the ramp and modifies the circular orbit of the "translation plate".
    My top weight hit the frame a couple of times in early testing. Skinner had to design a drive that could accommodate a varying orbit of the lower shaft.
    The upper shaft is positioned but, not rotated. The upper weight determines whether or not the upper shaft rotates. The upper weight is locked into the upper shaft. Otherwise, nothing would happen. As the lower shaft is loaded, the translation plate changes it's orbit. The translation plate is just a guide that is dragged along by the upper shaft.

    The top of this machine runs in a circle.
    I colored everything to make it easier to separate the actions.
    Regardless of whether the top orbit is circular or oval, all the same principles apply as far as centrifugal force, leverage and downforce.
    The tall weight is trying to stay at the bottom of a ramp. The load is trying to force it up the ramp.
    IF the upper-most orbit were oval, the irregularity would be much diminished by the leverage ration between; the part above the gimbal vs, the part below the gimbal. The translation plate describes a circle of only a couple of inches. Since the translation plate allows for a varying orbit anyway, the irregularity may very well be cancelled by independent movements of the lower weight.

    I may eventually get around to building the quad device. It is the ONLY iteration that is worth building. In the meantime, I'm building the Terawatt device.

    Leave a comment:

  • Aaron
    Please stay on topic

    Let's keep the conversation ON TOPIC about William F. Skinner's gravity machine. The one that has an elliptical input at the top as I have said from the beginning. It's right there in the Skinner video - plain as day. Read my posts from the beginning. All claims the top input is circular are false and misleading.

    All other topics need to be posted in their own threads.

    Leave a comment:

  • soundiceuk
    Originally posted by soundiceuk View Post
    I just rewatched the Skinner original video. Notice 8 weights!

    I think Skinner was also tapping 7.8hz and didn't even know it!

    Just look at the environmental input at 8hz!

    Imagine if these inventors had of known 7.83hz was the resonant frequency!

    Leave a comment:

  • citfta
    Hi Les,

    As I said before I don't do Facebook, so I still haven't seen exactly what it is you are trying to share. I did see the interesting video showing the off balance wheel attached to an arm and swinging wildly up and down. How exactly that supposed extra power can be used is to me an exciting prospect. Since your posts are getting lost in this thread which is about a different device would you consider starting a new thread about the device you are trying to share? If you don't want to do that you can feel free to share your information in a thread I started a while back for open discussion about projects on this forum. Here is a link to that thread:

    Looking forward to any more information you can share. Possibly a drawing or picture of the complete device.


    Leave a comment:

  • soundiceuk
    I just rewatched the Skinner original video. Notice 8 weights!

    I think Skinner was also tapping 7.8hz and didn't even know it!

    Leave a comment:

  • soundiceuk
    So what have you built Les and what has Kevin built that works?

    After you spoke so highly of Kevin I spent at least 6 hours researching his work. Did I find a working prototype or anything with as much potential as the Skinner device? No I did not.

    I really think you should start your own thread as it doesn't belong here.

    Leave a comment:

  • Les Banki
    Originally posted by norman6538 View Post
    Thanks Mike, I understand the moving of the goal posts but which weight
    is the ball and which is the goal post?
    top? bottom?

    Back to Patrick Kelley's chair. I when the chair falls to one side it
    has to be lifted back up so it can fall again. Where does the work
    come from to lift it back up? My thinking was centrifical/centrifugal
    force around the end of the oval...


    Perhaps you might believe that I keep replying to your posts just to annoy you!
    But NO, that is not the case.
    I am just hoping that others here might also read my posts too and finally WAKE UP!

    Well, are still confused and I dare say you will REMAIN CONFUSED
    until you STOP believing all the posts in this thread (and elsewhere)!
    I know I will NOT be very "popular" here by saying that virtually ALL posts here are pure NONSENSE!

    How do I know??

    So far, I seem to be the only one here who has actually BUILD something, instead of just theorizing.
    While meaning no offense to Mike, what did he give you?? His "theories"!
    Nothing more!

    Les Banki

    To finish off, I will post Kevin Hay's Facebook post today:

    Kevin Hay added 7 new photos.
    1 hr
    I have nothing to prove.
    The functions that I am showing and the mechanics that I am sharing do this for me.
    This is the best part. I cannot refute these functions, as I try every day to test and learn how to better apply them.
    That is all that I am showing here.
    I am not trying to convert people or mediate discontent through usury.
    I am not trying to manipulate others or convince anyone of anything.
    I cannot do this. In fact, it was very difficult for me to break my own programming and move past the barriers that were taught to me as a child and through my entire adult life.
    I could barely convince myself that what I was observing was possible due to the misconceptions and the disinformation that is still being taught today.
    Now, I simply follow these reactions and I show some of them and explain some of these here.
    I know that many people use facebook for a messenger system, for finding people when they are lonely or for hiding behind masks and becoming someone else for a time...
    I cannot do this here.
    I came onto facebook to share some information with people and to find out if there were others like myself among these 1 point something billion facebook users...
    I have found a few other people here that have similar interests and yet very few have emerged that can accelerate what I am seeing inside of my mind.
    I am hopeful that many people in the years to come can find this information and begin to test some of these very simple mechanical and electromagnetic devices as these will allow others to begin a much needed education in the forces that are generated from planetary movement, such as gravitation and electricity.
    It is through understanding the force functions that control the flow of water that we can begin to observe leveraged torsion dynamics and scalar functions being split through the mechanics of molecular geometry and the phase convergence of opposing magnetic functions that invert and form the cohesion of "atoms" into matter.
    I see these functions somewhat differently, as magnetic torsion tensors, as decoupled hydrogen in an atomic form, however this is not usable or testable through mechanical designs that allow people to see and learn from these simple polar inversions that induce electromagnetic compression, as gravity or inertia.
    The simple fact is that we can generate electricity from a lever and an imbalanced wheel.
    We can apply this system in the same manner as any hydroelectric dynamo or facility, only we do not need water for a conduit.
    We never did.
    Nikola Tesla and the Niagara falls project was a patronizing jump back in time, as this could have been done far easier and far less expensively by using very simple mechanical systems that could have been engineered several thousand years ago.
    So, we need to take a few moments and realize that you can't test this by reading about it.
    You need a lever and a wheel.
    That's it.
    You can make two compression systems from any bicycle.
    A fellow just sent me something similar to Veljko Milkovic's pumping system.
    Here is my first attempt:
    Veljko Milkovic shows how to do this using pendulums,

    Leave a comment: