Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

    EDIT: I made 3 videos showing my reverse engineering of this machine - they're all in one video now. Before reading anything else in this thread, watch the original video (link is in this post) and watch my FULL VERSION explanation: FULL VERSION – Gravity Power 1939 Reverse Engineering Details | A & P Electronic Media – Digital Publishing by Aaron Murakami & Peter Lindemann


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    First watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxIRaJlTD4Y

    I saw the conversation at Stefan's forum so I thought I'd share about about my work on the William F. Skinner gravity power machine. I've had it figured out for a couple years but never saw anyone talk about it. Was going to give a demonstration at this year's conference, but was encouraged by a lot of people to talk about the Plasma Ignition instead.

    Anyway, this is a short video clip to simply get more interest in the machine. If I see people making progress by building things and not just talking about ideas, I'll share more bit by bit.

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

    Youtube description: This is a short vid to get interest in the machine. Saw the discussion at Stefan's forum so thought I'd share. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ity-power.html Skinner's machine gives more than 1200% more work than is input - the rest comes from gravity. That is a COP of 12.0, which is beyond useful. It is one of the few real free energy machines that has been in front of everyone for a long time!
    Last edited by Aaron; 06-03-2014, 10:56 PM.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Murakami

    Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
    Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
    RPX & MWO http://vril.io

  • #2
    William F. Skinner - Gravity Power 1939

    My post at Stefan's forum in response to what I saw Arto post - Stefan's thread: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%


    Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%

    « Reply #77 on: Today at 08:08:06 AM »Congratulations Arto, you mostly have it right. Looks like you've been photocopying my drawings!

    Just kidding - you know I love your work.

    That John device though is not the same mechanism and putting two weights opposite on the shaft defeats the asymmetry of the system. His attachment at the top is also going in a circle - not elliptical and if I grab the bottom weight on his device, it will stop the input because they are in lock-step with each other and the input and output MUST NOT BE directly proportional to each other.

    If you grab the output, you should be able to do so and the input can still spin without locking up and visa versa - lock up the input and the bottom weight can still free spin around the axis. We're dealing with open dissipative systems that are out of equilibrium. If the input and output are directly related to each other, then forget about it - no gains.

    I know this because I started to replicate the Skinner machine almost 2 years ago and have had a working model for about a year. After I had my conference last year, Jim Murray were at my home with Peter Lindemann when Peter interviewed Jim live on the internet here in my office - Jim saw my basic setup in my shop... I saw the references to Jim's mechanical device that someone posted. Jim is a master at both the electrical, math and mechanical devices.

    I don't have a lot of time to get into this, but in my forum - http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ity-power.html I'll start a thread and will lay down the basics of how the Skinner machine works. It's not a mystery and like I said, I've done it.

    One thing that would be helpful to me is if anyone can tell me a very simple way to rotate an iphone video 90 degrees - that is what I used to shoot some demonstrations of the priniciples back then...been using Android every since.

    Anyway, I was going to demonstrate it at this year's conference but I had a lot of pressure from a lot of people to do a presentation on the Plasma Ignition so that is what I'm doing and was going to plan to release the Skinner replica at the 2015 conference. But since some of you seem genuinely interested in this, I'm open to sharing some...depends on how many people take what I share and actually apply it with some real builds. If I see that, I'll share more.

    Stefan, feel free to copy and paste anything I put on my forum here for your readers.

    So you know I'm not kidding - I just put this up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJDCgmtITRs

    Anyway, was pleased to find this thread!


    Aaron
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Murakami

    Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
    Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
    RPX & MWO http://vril.io

    Comment


    • #3
      ~Gri to Aaron~

      Originally posted by [url=http://www.energeticforum.com/showthread.php?p=256487]Aaron[/url]
      My post at Stefan's forum in response to what I saw
      Originally posted by [url=http://www.overunity.com/index.php?msg=404486].. qiman[/url]
      Anyway, was pleased to find this thread!

      Aaron
      Hi.
      Is there a better layout of a global quote
      in vBulletin than in SMF ?
      Last edited by gri; 05-30-2014, 09:53 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        quote

        Originally posted by gri View Post
        Hi.
        Is there a better layout of a global quote
        in vBulletin than in SMF ?
        Hi Gri, I'm not sure what you mean by global quote and what is SMF?
        Sincerely,
        Aaron Murakami

        Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
        Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
        RPX & MWO http://vril.io

        Comment


        • #5
          ~Gri to Aaron~

          Originally posted by [url=http://www.energeticforum.com/viewthread.php?post=256492]Aaron[/url]
          I'm not sure what you mean by global quote and what is SMF?
          Social Movement for Freedom
          based on Simple Machines' Forum software
          stands for "SMF".

          Stefan's forum is on SMF2 forum drive, overloaded by bad modifications.

          The default quote code both in vBulletin and SMF
          does not contain the full address of the forum
          where the original post has been placed.
          In result the default code of the quote
          is inoperable after copy-pasting the default quote
          to another forum.

          Instead, for distributed global discussions
          the full link is needed in quote headers,
          with unique post identificator,
          independent from thread/board identificators/titles.

          It would be better if both/all forums
          could understand the common format of the quote header with full link.

          Layout is about how the quote header looks like
          and where is it placed - above the quote box as in default SMF
          or inside the box as in default vBulletin
          or, maybe, in the break of the upper border of the quote box.

          I am subtitling my posts intentionally
          so you could easily split your thread if you wish
          either before or after
          converting your forum to SMF.

          Comment


          • #6
            William F. Skinner - Gravity Power

            Copied from OU.

            [quote author=quartz link=topic=14655.msg404493#msg404493 date=1401439733]
            I think it lacks a degree of freedom in this model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJDCgmtITRs
            On the sequence that I selected https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...IRaJlTD4Y#t=29
            in the link can be seen that the longer the long cylinder can rotate about its axis independently with respect to the smaller cylinder.
            I think see the angle between the small cylinder and the long cylinder not fixed.
            [/quote]

            What do you mean it lacks a degree of freedom?

            The lower heavier weight rotates around a fixed axis at the bottom. At the top of that shaft connected to the lower weight, it moves in an oval shape. The graph paper diagrams at the end of my video show you 100% the mechanism to translate back and forth oscillating motion to circular motion that causes the top of the shaft to move in an elliptical orbit. The back and forth kicks the upper weight back and forth while the momentum of the upper weight moves in a general circular orbit. As the upper weight moves that "translation" plate (i find it funny someone used that same word here as I do) - that pulls the top of the upper shaft around to FOLLOW the path of the upper weight. The lower weight follows the upper weight.

            Again, that diagram I show at the end is the sequence of the mechanism and you can replicate the entire thing by understanding that in addition to knowing how to keep the lower weight shaft moving independently and not in lock step with the input section. With those two thing, you can replicate the entire machine.
            Sincerely,
            Aaron Murakami

            Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
            Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
            RPX & MWO http://vril.io

            Comment


            • #7
              William F. Skinner - Gravity Power

              from ou

              [quote author=noonespecial link=topic=14655.msg404508#msg404508 date=1401463392]

              Jim Murray agrees with you. This is taken from Jim Murray's Mechanical Amplifier video which I assume most here have seen and Jim makes the following observation:
              "The reason why power is conserved in an ordinary transmission is because of where we choose to place the prime mover. If the prime mover is placed on the axis of symmetry, I don't care what arrangement you have, any power gained as part of the system will be destroyed when the output is brought back to the center."


              [/quote]

              Here is an excerpt we put out about mechanical amplifiers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNeLgqrXJiw that was filmed at some event put out by Greer - he mentions that in this recent interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhaAxQjyeC0

              Yes, that is the concept that many people have a hard time wrapping their heads around.

              For example, another legitimate "ou" mechanical amplifier is the Veljko 2 State Oscillator:

              Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator - A Mechanical Amplifier - Veljko Milkovic - Official presentation



              As it is rocking, if you hold the large hammer down on the "anvil" end and prevent it from moving - the input pendulum at the right side will continue to rock back and forth until it stops. It is not in lockstep with the output. They must be indirectly connected so the output is not proportional to the input. Otherwise, gravitational potential energy cannot enter the system and add to the work being done. But in the Veljko arrangement, it can as well as in the Skinner machine. Later, I'll show a clip showing how I separate them - it's pretty easy. The same principle applies to the Bedini SG, Jim Murray's SERPS device and every single legitimate Over 1.0 COP device - not just mechanical over 1.0 COP machines.

              Otherwise, it is a closed loop system that will wind down to equilibrium (dead stop) and can't put external gravitational potential to use.

              For example, some people look at Veljko's device and compare it to a grasshopper oil well pump because they refuse to acknowledge non-equilibrium principles.



              If you stop the output pumping section and lock it up, it is directly connected to the input and will lock up the whole machine. The input will not be able to move at all. And likewise, if you lock up the input section, the output section will not continue to move until it dies down, it will simply instantly stop since it is in lockstep. This machine is a closed loop machine where there it cannot make use of free gravitational potential input. Huge difference from the open looped Vejlko machine and the Skinner machine.
              Sincerely,
              Aaron Murakami

              Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
              Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
              RPX & MWO http://vril.io

              Comment


              • #8
                ~Gri to Aaron~

                Originally posted by [url=http://www.overunity.com/index.php?msg=404530].. qiman[/url]
                Originally posted by [url=http://www.overunity.com/index.php?msg=404493].. quartz[/url]
                I think it lacks a degree of freedom in this model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJDCgmtITRs
                On the sequence that I selected https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...IRaJlTD4Y#t=29
                in the link can be seen that the longer the long cylinder can rotate about its axis
                independently with respect to the smaller cylinder.
                I think see the angle between the small cylinder and the long cylinder not fixed.?
                What do you mean it lacks a degree of freedom?

                The lower heavier weight rotates around a fixed axis at the bottom.
                At the top of that shaft connected to the lower weight, it moves in an oval shape.
                The graph paper diagrams at the end of my video show you 100% the mechanism
                to translate back and forth oscillating motion to circular motion
                that causes the top of the shaft to move in an elliptical orbit.
                The back and forth kicks the upper weight back and forth
                while the momentum of the upper weight moves in a general circular orbit.
                As the upper weight moves that "translation" plate
                (i find it funny someone used that same word here as I do) -
                that pulls the top of the upper shaft around to FOLLOW the path of the upper weight.
                The lower weight follows the upper weight.

                Again, that diagram I show at the end is the sequence of the mechanism
                and you can replicate the entire thing by understanding that
                in addition to knowing how to keep the lower weight shaft moving independently
                and not in lock step with the input section.
                With those two thing, you can replicate the entire machine.
                { The program vainly requires at least 10 characters of the post
                excluding the quotes.}

                Comment


                • #9
                  Gravity Power 1939

                  Blog post about this - will probably just post details here: 1200% Gravity Power | A & P Electronic Media – Digital Publishing by Aaron Murakami & Peter Lindemann
                  Sincerely,
                  Aaron Murakami

                  Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
                  Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
                  RPX & MWO http://vril.io

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    @Gri

                    Gri, I still don't know what you're really asking.

                    If you need a link that goes directly to a post, use the link to the #x at the top right (not the permalink) and it will take you directly to a post.
                    Sincerely,
                    Aaron Murakami

                    Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
                    Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
                    RPX & MWO http://vril.io

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Aaron,

                      Thanks for bringing this up, I find gravity machines fascinating. This one must have slipped through the cracks.

                      I know this thread is about Skinner and I don't want to derail, but are you saying the John device is not a mechanical amplifier, or its just not using the same concept as the Skinner device?

                      It kinda looks to me like the John device is just a little cog in a more complicated device like what Skinner using. I'm probably wrong, but looks like Skinner is using multiple off balanced parts to achieve his goal. Where as the John device is just one off balanced part.

                      Any how thanks for starting this thread. I didn't know of the John device, or Skinners device even existing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Pics

                        Hi Aaron,
                        Here are some of the pictures I posted(slightly edited) on OU. I will post the detailed drawings soon, this has been a blast. Regards Arto

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          John device

                          Originally posted by drak View Post
                          Hi Aaron,

                          Thanks for bringing this up, I find gravity machines fascinating. This one must have slipped through the cracks.

                          I know this thread is about Skinner and I don't want to derail, but are you saying the John device is not a mechanical amplifier, or its just not using the same concept as the Skinner device?

                          It kinda looks to me like the John device is just a little cog in a more complicated device like what Skinner using. I'm probably wrong, but looks like Skinner is using multiple off balanced parts to achieve his goal. Where as the John device is just one off balanced part.

                          Any how thanks for starting this thread. I didn't know of the John device, or Skinners device even existing.

                          Looking at the John device - I don't want to discourage anything there, but on the surface seeing the mechanism here is what i see.

                          1. It rotates the top of the shaft in a perfect circle and we should have a variance such as in an elliptical orbit.

                          2. The bottom weight moving around is in direct proportion to the input mechanism so I don't see at the moment how gravity can contribute unless the gravitational potential exceeds the force given by the input motor and I don't see that happening.

                          3. When the 2nd weight is added, we add even more symmetry to the system when it should be more asymmetrical.

                          There are almost no similarities to the Skinner machine that I can see.
                          Sincerely,
                          Aaron Murakami

                          Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
                          Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
                          RPX & MWO http://vril.io

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Gravity Power

                            Originally posted by artoj View Post
                            Hi Aaron,
                            Here are some of the pictures I posted(slightly edited) on OU. I will post the detailed drawings soon, this has been a blast. Regards Arto
                            Arto,

                            Thanks for posting that.

                            You see where you have the square translation plate? Above that is where the level comes through the frame to the plate - I think there are springs on both sides of that lever.

                            Anyway, I'll post some pics on my build and if I get time, I'll post some vids showing the mechanism...the interaction with that translation plate and the upper weight is what causes the lower heavy weight to constantly be "falling" and that is very key.
                            Sincerely,
                            Aaron Murakami

                            Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
                            Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
                            RPX & MWO http://vril.io

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Gravity Power Paper

                              Old paper I wrote up and just posted in my blog at 1939 Gravity Power Paper | A & P Electronic Media – Digital Publishing by Aaron Murakami & Peter Lindemann

                              Images not clear or text you can see in the images, I'll have to deal with that later when I have time.


                              William F. Skinner
                              Gravity Power Machine, 1939




                              William Frank Skinner was a prolific inventor during the early 1900’s. He was the proprietor of Skinner Manufacturing Company, Inc., in Miami, Florida.
                              His inventions include a toy moving picture camera, refrigerated water cooler, pulsed alkaline battery rejuvenator, amongst many other inventions.
                              One invention that made the national news, but apparently immediately disappeared because of its highly disruptive nature is his Gravity Power Machine.


                              There are no patent or other documents relating to this and only old newspaper copies make any reference to it. And, an obscure video in some British archives, which you can see here: GRAVITY POWER! - British Pathé and video stills are available here: Video Stills: GRAVITY POWER! - British Pathé.


                              The basic claim is that Mr. Skinner is inputing power from a 1/8 HP electric motor and the output is claimed to be multiplied by 1200%. The output is going to a belt driven lathe and a couple other shop tools that would normally require several horsepower to operate. All that work performed for less than 100 watts.


                              Here is a copy of one of the nationwide newspaper articles:



                              Although the claims are extraordinary, by carefully examining the machine in the video and reading the above article, we can deduce exactly what Mr. Skinner had accomplished so that we can create a replica. Let’s take a look at the main parts to the Gravity Power Machine:
                              1. Input is 1/8 HP electric motor.
                              2. Geared up input wheel is belt driven from the Input Motor from a 1/8” diameter cotton thread.
                              3. Input geared up wheel drives a belt that turns the Lever Mover, which moves the four levers back and forth.
                              The first three steps are simply to move the Input Levers back and forth primarily with a bit of rotation at the top of the lever. This could obviously be done in a number of ways. The back and forth is the primary motion and the slight circular motion of the level from the top increases the effectiveness of the primary mechanism.


                              My proposed method would be to have a Scottish Yoke assembly to convert rotational movement from a prime mover into linear back and forth movement. There are all kinds of speed controlling mechanisms available today that Mr. Skinner did not have so we should be able to greatly simplify the lever action. And of course we want a lever long enough so that the smallest input is leveraged to the max.


                              4. All the real action starts by the Input Lever rocking back and forth and having that movement leveraged slightly below the pivot point at the bottom.




                              When the lever is moved back and forth, its movement pivots around the pivot point. It is not clear whether or not the lever is directly connected to the pivot or is simply clamped there by what is labeled as the “Pivot Spring Clamp.”


                              In the video, the lever is not solidly locked to the spring clamp as there is some “give” in both directions. It appears there is some sort of “give” mechanism such as a spring, leaf spring or other setup to possibly act as a dampener but also to assist in the leverage process. The spring clamp may be directly connected to the pivot and the lever may possibly be simply clamped in the clamp.


                              Although this is speculation, it does not take away from the observable fact that the bottom of the lever is moving the swivel bracket. The spring clamp doesn’t appear to be necessary for the primary operation of the machine but is there to enhance the functionality.


                              5. Looking closely at the swivel bracket, we can see that the diameter of the lever connection is smaller than the lever. So, it is possible that it is the same rod that is simply machined to a smaller diameter for practical purposes for fitting into a bearing in the bracket, or, the lever is disconnected inside of the spring clamp and a separate smaller diameter rod extends from the spring clamp down to the swivel bracket. This lower lever connection is one of three apparent connections to the bracket. The other two are a fixed connection to the upper cylinder weight, which rotates with the swivel bracket. And the other is the lower eccentric wobble shaft, which is connected to the bracket and the bracket freely rotates around this lower shaft.


                              We can see this clearly in the picture below:





                              This swivel bracket is where all the real action happens.



                              As the cylinder weight that is fixed to the swivel bracket swings around in a clockwise direction (from a top down view), its momentum obviously has a tendency to keep it swinging in a circle. This is very important. When the lever is pushed in one direction, it is pushing one corner of the square swivel bracket and that moves in unison with the weight moving in a clockwise direction and when the momentum of the weight pulls it around towards the other direction, it helps to pull the corner that the lever is attached to in the opposite direction.


                              What this means is that the back and forth reaction of the lever is translated into rotational motion of the swivel bracket. And that shows us that the reaction of the back and forth helps keep the upper weight rotating in the same direction without it being opposed.
                              Furthermore, as the upper weight is pulled in a circle, it reinforces the lever’s input instead of counter it.


                              What we have here is an example of an apparent violation of Newton’s Third Law of Motion where the reaction actually assists the machine to perform in the forward direction instead of countering any movement. This is consistent with other known working mechanical amplifiers such as Veljko Milkovic’s 2-Stage Mechanical Oscillator and Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano’s Force Multiplier System where all the reaction in the system is diverted in a way so that it assists the system’s function in the forward direction.


                              As there is energy dissipation by the rotating upper weight, the lever only needs to input enough to make up for the loss in momentum of the weight, which is very little. Therefore, for a very small periodic input, two times per full rotational cycle, we are getting the full amount of work from the very heavy weight.
                              Sincerely,
                              Aaron Murakami

                              Books & Videos https://emediapress.com
                              Conference http://energyscienceconference.com
                              RPX & MWO http://vril.io

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X