Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #301  
Old 06-29-2014, 12:08 PM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
Again it is not an ellipse in that reference drawing, also the bottom of the bottomshaft is not really an ellipse, an ellipse is about as close as we can get as an explination, in reality it is 3 dimentional, it is forever changing in 3 planes. The top of that bottom weight is forever wanting to fall over, that is why it is so high (long).

Explain better please, as I do not know what you are talking about!
I apologize. Perhaps its an artifact of my computer screen but it looks taller than its width.

Let's take your bicycle wheel example. if its hung suspended by a heavy thread and I tilt the wheel so that the ball bearing rolls around its perimeter, its exactly as you state.

However, if I were able to tilt it AND rotate it at the same time, (just as in Mr. Skinner's device) centripetal force would hold the ball in a stationary position. That is why I believe the weights are NOT falling once this is up to speed.

Does this make more sense now?

Charlie
__________________
 

Last edited by purelyprimitives; 06-29-2014 at 12:52 PM.
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #302  
Old 06-29-2014, 01:31 PM
gotoluc gotoluc is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldpro View Post
Mike,
Luc: maybe if you move the top of your lower weight shaft pillow block bearing farther away from the square tubing it will work better. that will lean the weight over farther giving more of an incline for the bottom weight to swing around on. In other words put a spacer block between the bearing and the tubing and connect them back together with 8" long bolts or so.
I don't know what Aaron means when he says it's not at the correct right angle. the angle looks ok to me...it already is at 90*...just not out far enough. ??

Tom
Hi Tom,

you've obviously been experimenting as you're on the ball with your advice and questions.

As you can see (in some of my videos) I have longer bolts to hold the pillow block bearing to the mid plate so I can add spacers so the lower shaft would lean out more. But there is a limit as the lower weight will hit the wall (side supports) if I go too far. That maybe a downfall to my frame design as there may be an ideal lean angle for a particular weight at a certain RPM for it to transfer gravity into the lower shaft and I might be limited to reach it?
I can also move the pillow block closer or further to the upper lever to see the effects.
Unfortunately now I can't do any tests with this bad elliptical mechanism and didn't do enough tests with that when I had the lever turning in a circular motion and I can't just reinstall the circular mechanism since I had to remove (cut) 2 inches off the upper lever shaft for it to work with the elliptical mechanism.

Also, I have personal things to take care of so I'll be away for about 4 days.

Luc
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 06-29-2014, 02:34 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by purelyprimitives View Post
I apologize. Perhaps its an artifact of my computer screen but it looks taller than its width.

Let's take your bicycle wheel example. if its hung suspended by a heavy thread and I tilt the wheel so that the ball bearing rolls around its perimeter, its exactly as you state.

However, if I were able to tilt it AND rotate it at the same time, (just as in Mr. Skinner's device) centripetal force would hold the ball in a stationary position. That is why I believe the weights are NOT falling once this is up to speed.

Does this make more sense now?

Charlie
Ok, apology accepted.

As you are explaining of the ball staying in one position, that is right if the wheel is turning around the axis. But in Skinners design the weight is fixed to the center axis, the ball is not. My idea was not as a totally direct comparison, the idea was to explain how can a mass always be falling, that is very difficult to get ones head around how that is possible with the minutis of input energy, and only in looking at it in 3D is how you can see how it is done.

To draw a diagram, however much you try, it is not 3D.

The weights are falling most of the time, but very little, nearly nothing when free wheeling, no load. But when you apply a load things start changing, angles in a 3D realationship start changing, the fall starts to be more pronounced, tourque starts to increase, this is why I said it is self regulating and proved by a very good demo of Dave.

As far as a flywheel is concerned, really it is not a word to apply to this machine, closer would be a counter balance on a cam shaft, but really not even that! A flywheel is only a flywheel in the true sense of the meaning when it is a perfectly balanced solid circular mass, if it is not, then it will try to destroy itself as opposed to being an energy store.

regards

Mike
__________________
 

Last edited by Michael John Nunnerley; 06-29-2014 at 03:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 06-29-2014, 02:49 PM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by purelyprimitives View Post
I apologize. Perhaps its an artifact of my computer screen but it looks taller than its width.

Let's take your bicycle wheel example. if its hung suspended by a heavy thread and I tilt the wheel so that the ball bearing rolls around its perimeter, its exactly as you state.

However, if I were able to tilt it AND rotate it at the same time, (just as in Mr. Skinner's device) centripetal force would hold the ball in a stationary position. That is why I believe the weights are NOT falling once this is up to speed.

Does this make more sense now?

Charlie
For some reason I am unable to edit the above comment so I'll add to it here:

There's one other factor at play here. If the tilting and rotating bicycle wheel is turning at the same speed as the mass of the ball, there is no difference of velocity between the two and no impetus for the ball to move.
Do you agree with this?

I went back to review your very well done video specifically looking to see if I could spot the weights rising and falling but didn't see any.

You make a good point at the end regarding the load. It would seem that any load resistance would cause the lower weight to 'lag' behind the upper weight. This would create a smaller angle between the two weights which in turn, creates more imbalance. More imbalance creates more torque on the output shaft. This would make it act like a variable torque device. Any mechanical advantage would be generated by the shifting angle of the 2 weights and not the 'falling' of the weights.

If this is true, then it reminds me of the torque converter invented by George Constantinesco:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021104.../const005.html

His torque converter does the exact same thing but considerably easier to make.

Its interesting that according to the history of his device, General Motors bought up the patent and immediately shelved it. Sound familiar?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 06-29-2014, 02:50 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
I would like all to have another look at the first enlarged photo, of the only photo we have, which thanks to Luc has been posted.

If you look closely you will see at the top far right and top center, black wheels. These are at the extream ends of the cross I show in the first section drive A. I did not show this on the diagram, sorry for that, as I thought it obvious to be practical.

Please also look at the main video in the biggest amplitude you can, from 3sec to 5sec and you can see what I have explained at that input to the top of the levers. It is there to see, and is very very important.

regards

Mike
__________________
 

Last edited by Michael John Nunnerley; 06-29-2014 at 03:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 06-29-2014, 03:19 PM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post

The weights are falling all the time, but very little, nearly nothing when free wheeling, no load. But when you apply a load things start changing, angles in a 3D realationship start changing, the fall starts to be more pronounced, tourque starts to increase, this is why I said it is self regulating and proved by a very good demo of Dave.
OK, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one...

Charlie
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 06-29-2014, 03:22 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by purelyprimitives View Post
For some reason I am unable to edit the above comment so I'll add to it here:

There's one other factor at play here. If the tilting and rotating bicycle wheel is turning at the same speed as the mass of the ball, there is no difference of velocity between the two and no impetus for the ball to move.
Do you agree with this?

Yes I agree, it will stay in the same place, will not have impetus.

I went back to review your very well done video specifically looking to see if I could spot the weights rising and falling but didn't see any.

Not my video, it was Luc's, and I don't think anyone will see that, it is the reference point that moves and the mass follows, the reference point is the top of the shaft and that can be seen in a "type of" figure 8, it is 3 planes moving in harmony and not 2.

You make a good point at the end regarding the load. It would seem that any load resistance would cause the lower weight to 'lag' behind the upper weight. This would create a smaller angle between the two weights which in turn, creates more imbalance. More imbalance creates more torque on the output shaft.

I would not call it imbalance, I don't think it is, if it was, as stated I think by you, it would shake itself apart

This would make it act like a variable torque device. Any mechanical advantage would be generated by the shifting angle of the 2 weights and not the 'falling' of the weights.

It is a variable torque device, and yes part is the relation of the two weights, I think pages could be written to describe what actually maybe happening, it is an unexplored area. I ask you a question, what happens between centipetal and centrifugal forces if a third force is made to interact?

Remember centripetal and centrifugal forces only exist together.


If this is true, then it reminds me of the torque converter invented by George Constantinesco:
https://web.archive.org/web/20021104.../const005.html

His torque converter does the exact same thing but considerably easier to make.

Its interesting that according to the history of his device, General Motors bought up the patent and immediately shelved it. Sound familiar?
yes sounds very familiar The part about GM.

Regards

Mike
__________________
 

Last edited by Michael John Nunnerley; 06-29-2014 at 03:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 06-29-2014, 03:33 PM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
I would not call it imbalance, I don't think it is, if it was, as stated I think by you, it would shake itself apart
Yes, but remember that all 4 rotating lower weights would be affected together and maintain a systemic balance even though the balance of the individual ones are changing.

Don't you agree that if the lower weight changed its angle in respect to the upper there would be a greater imbalance?

Charlie
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 06-29-2014, 03:41 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by purelyprimitives View Post
OK, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one...

Charlie
I have altered, "all of the time" to "most of the time", that was a mistake typing things quickly without really thinking at my age, the part when they are not is when they get that little push each 180 degrees from the top of the system, the input, which travels down through the system. Dave put it nicely, "like a figure of 8", but in reality it is not, it has 3D not 2D.

You don't get anything for nothing, but you can put a little in and get more out, I think that is the whole point of the machine

regards

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 06-29-2014, 03:54 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by purelyprimitives View Post
Yes, but remember that all 4 rotating lower weights would be affected together and maintain a systemic balance even though the balance of the individual ones are changing.

Don't you agree that if the lower weight changed its angle in respect to the upper there would be a greater imbalance?

Charlie
No, one keeps in balance with the other, as torque demands the rest follows, it is self regulating, even the top drive starts to free wheel (misses a beat or two).

regards

Mike

PS. I would love to play tenis with you all day, but I have other things to do, this is not an opt out, this is just so you know that I know what you are trying to do, and I think most others here too. I have my family here this weekend and next week I am away for work. Lets see what develops while I'm away, I will look in on my phone.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 06-29-2014, 04:27 PM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
PS. I would love to play tenis with you all day, but I have other things to do, this is not an opt out, this is just so you know that I know what you are trying to do, and I think most others here too. I have my family here this weekend and next week I am away for work. Lets see what develops while I'm away, I will look in on my phone.
Gee, and here it was me thinking I was ending the conversation by saying lets agree to disagree.

And, you have piqued my curiosity, what specifically are you accusing me of 'trying to do?'

Charlie
__________________
 

Last edited by purelyprimitives; 06-29-2014 at 04:37 PM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 06-30-2014, 06:20 AM
h2ocommuter's Avatar
h2ocommuter h2ocommuter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fresno Ca,
Posts: 147
Send a message via Skype™ to h2ocommuter
5 Lever assembly

As things seem to be quite theoretical here I will take a stab at my observations.

I believe the premis of this machine has mainly three energy components that generate or transmit energy. As I study the mechanisms and recognize the various forces this machine utilize Let me cite them in order of operation as I see them.

Incomming rotational energy, 1/5 HP I doubt Mr Skinner found overunity in this operation although the lifting force is obviously very high. Has anyone measured the Lever and Fulcrum Numbers?

second in line: The offset pivot, I find this an admirable mechanism because is has centering qualities very odd in relation to the two fulcrums. I find the pivot most intriguing in another way because it holds the counterweight. I haven't made up my mind about the counterweight; if it's utilitarian feature is reason to add leverage to the lower fulcrum or if it is more a helper weight for the upper fulcrum. This component really has my perspectives searching.

Next is output force. On the first movement I see simple gravity being the only partner in output rotation. As any slope will cause the weight to move. As things perpetuate into full speed Loaded operation, I see two more variables. The first obvious component is centrifugal motion. As deflection may have a bearing on the dynamics of any such device more or less centrifugal motion may be at play. If the stress is such as to incorporate more radius the centrifugal force will be greater. On my device I will generate 1.5 G force at 60 rpm. I May choose to observe the centrifugal and centripetal motion of my weights but at first I will not go this far into understanding the dynamics.

Summary:
I think this machine will only output more energy when the perfection of these dynamics are realized
1. Fulcrum to lever maximum advantage for weight lifted.
2. Bearing perfection for each joint.
3. Understanding offset counterweight for balance under full load condition.
4. Probably the most important is the angle of the slope. This is very easy for me to understand because I am a truck driver. all streets have a 2% crown so the water runs off, steep hills like the grapevine have 6 to 7 % slopes. Causes heavy breaking and slow rides up hill. The lower fulcrum is setting the angle of the slope for the weight to ride on "This is consistent". No variation whatsoever Loaded or no load this angle does not change when the machine is setup vertically.

For me to dissect the output power "as stated" it has to come from gravity
1. "How Much does all the spinning weight weigh?
2. What does the G force contribute if anything?
3. What is the angle of the slope?

*. The maximum output can be associated with the slope angle/weight#velocity.




I'm tired


have a great day.
Zane
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMGA0375.JPG (114.0 KB, 61 views)
File Type: jpg IMGA0379.JPG (119.0 KB, 41 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by h2ocommuter; 06-30-2014 at 06:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 07-01-2014, 12:28 AM
Dave Q Dave Q is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Posts: 17
William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

I see much discussion regarding the operation of the top drive.

My Meccano model demonstrates the advantage of a perfectly linear drive
with no circular or elliptical component.

I had pointed out that this drive results in the rotating weight following a shallow figure of eight path in the vertical plane. Seen from above, the path is circular, albeit rising and falling with its peaks 180* apart.

There is a very important difference between the reciprocating upper drive, and the rotating drive to the lower weight.
I have mentioned it before, but it is very significant. It is this.

It is a simple matter to time the rotation of the four sets of rotating lower weights so that they are dynamically balanced, and vibration is minimised.
However, the balanced weights still need to be driven from above.
In the case of the reciprocating drive, if the four sections are driven 90*
out of phase, the result will be the virtual cancellation of the energy required
to lift the weights each 180* of rotation.
(This is easily done with a crankshaft)

With such an arrangement, as one weight is rising, its opposite number is falling thus balancing out the lifting effort. Also, because the reciprocating impulse occurs on the horizontal line drawn through the "figure of eight" the weight is already rising under its own momentum when it is briefly assisted, then tilted on its downward path again.

I have posted another video on youtube demonstrating the instant acceleration of the weight as soon as it self times with the rocking motion of its drive.
This is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCOc...ature=youtu.be
Please excuse my unscripted and unedited presentation.
The principle is probably easier to see than to describe
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 07-01-2014, 02:34 AM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Dave,

Another excellent video. When will we see the effect with it driving an actual load?

Thanks,
Charlie
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 07-01-2014, 03:32 AM
Dave Q Dave Q is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Posts: 17
William F. Skinner - Gravity Power

Hi Charlie,

I will connect it to a small generator and publish the test result a.s.a.p.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 07-01-2014, 05:55 AM
alfilmx alfilmx is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3
Thanks, Dave Q
could you do it self-powered work?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 07-01-2014, 07:54 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,132
I see it now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Q View Post
I see much discussion regarding the operation of the top drive.

My Meccano model demonstrates the advantage of a perfectly linear drive
with no circular or elliptical component.

I had pointed out that this drive results in the rotating weight following a shallow figure of eight path in the vertical plane. Seen from above, the path is circular, albeit rising and falling with its peaks 180* apart.

There is a very important difference between the reciprocating upper drive, and the rotating drive to the lower weight.
I have mentioned it before, but it is very significant. It is this.

It is a simple matter to time the rotation of the four sets of rotating lower weights so that they are dynamically balanced, and vibration is minimised.
However, the balanced weights still need to be driven from above.
In the case of the reciprocating drive, if the four sections are driven 90*
out of phase, the result will be the virtual cancellation of the energy required
to lift the weights each 180* of rotation.
(This is easily done with a crankshaft)

With such an arrangement, as one weight is rising, its opposite number is falling thus balancing out the lifting effort. Also, because the reciprocating impulse occurs on the horizontal line drawn through the "figure of eight" the weight is already rising under its own momentum when it is briefly assisted, then tilted on its downward path again.

I have posted another video on youtube demonstrating the instant acceleration of the weight as soon as it self times with the rocking motion of its drive.
This is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCOc...ature=youtu.be
Please excuse my unscripted and unedited presentation.
The principle is probably easier to see than to describe
Hi Dave thanks for helping us understand.

Be looking in on you.

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 07-01-2014, 11:19 AM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Q View Post
I see much discussion regarding the operation of the top drive.

My Meccano model demonstrates the advantage of a perfectly linear drive
with no circular or elliptical component.

I had pointed out that this drive results in the rotating weight following a shallow figure of eight path in the vertical plane. Seen from above, the path is circular, albeit rising and falling with its peaks 180* apart.

The principle is probably easier to see than to describe
I had argued previously that there is no rising and falling of the weights. Clearly, with your linear drive approach there is. An elliptical rotation would have negligible oscillation and circular would have none.

This is a clear departure from Mr. Skinner's drive mechanism, however.

The 'elliptical' camp argues that there are energy gains in the changing radii every 180 degrees of the elliptical rotation due to the weight being accelerated through the smaller radius.

Do you think there is more energy gain to your approach?

Thanks,
Charlie
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 07-01-2014, 10:13 PM
Dave Q Dave Q is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Posts: 17
William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

Hi Charlie,

I made my model after watching the movie clip, and before seeing any other drawings, or debate on the subject.

Later, an on-line friend sent me a copy of the attached drawing, and I would gather from the simple "upper pivot" and the shaft clearance slot beneath it,
that the pivoted shaft travels back and forth in an arc following a straight line.

On the strength of this drawing, I would think that a gimballed, rotating arrangement would be a "clear departure" from the design.

Perhaps there are other drawings of Mr Skinner's device that I haven't seen?

Cheers,

Dave

P.S. if the signpost was moved from side to side, this little guy would spin
Attached Images
File Type: jpg upper pivot and clearance slot.jpg (43.2 KB, 40 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 07-01-2014, 10:54 PM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Hi Dave,

Here's the entire drawing done by Arto and he clearly shows the movement to be rotational not back and forth. Especially the part that's been cropped out of the drawing you show:


Quote:
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
Charlie
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #321  
Old 07-02-2014, 08:58 AM
Dave Q Dave Q is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Posts: 17
Regarding the drawing, I only used the relevant part to point out the non-gimballed pivot and the clearance slot.

In the lower left hand corner of this drawing, there is a small sketch of the arrangement with elliptical lines which could certainly indicate that the upper shafts are rotating. However the slotted beam would surely indicate that the shaft is travelling back and forth in a straight line.

Applied to a reciprocating drive, the elliptical lines could perhaps also indicate that when one side is lifting (working), the other is falling (being driven).

I have tested the output from my model today. As it appeared in the videos, the Meccano model produced less power out than in.

Adding extra weight top and bottom made a great improvement to the torque. Increasing the stroke of the linear drive improved the performance again. By scaling the device up with longer levers and more weight it appears that it may be possible for the output to significantly exceed the input.

Increasing the driven weight obviously increases the required input energy.
If the drives were both simply rotating, making them heavier and connecting multiple stages together as Mr Skinner did, would mean adding an even greater load on the input.

However, I do believe that if the input drives were reciprocating and balanced, it would be very easy to achieve a much higher output power, than the input power needed to operate the device.

I don't have enough Meccano to build a second double stage, so I guess for the time being I'll have to leave this project unfinished.

I've enjoyed the diversion, thanks for the positive comments
I wish you all every success with your projects.

My mates at our local inventor's club want to build a BIG one.
If they do and it's a success, you'll be the first to know.

Dave
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 07-02-2014, 12:35 PM
seychelles seychelles is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 12
Hi All This My Interpratation Of The Top Input Power Mechanismscan0004.pdf
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 07-02-2014, 06:42 PM
Cisco Cisco is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Q View Post
I have tested the output from my model today. As it appeared in the videos, the Meccano model produced less power out than in.
My mates at our local inventor's club want to build a BIG one.
If they do and it's a success, you'll be the first to know.
Dave,

Thanks for all your work. Your model answered many questions.

It would be helpful to learn how close the output was to the input. Earlier in your first video, you said the input drew barely 2 volts at about 130 milliamps. What readings did you get for the output?

If the inventors' club builds a BIG one and it's not a success, please let us know that too.

Cisco
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 07-02-2014, 10:03 PM
gyula gyula is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Q View Post
...
I have tested the output from my model today. As it appeared in the videos, the Meccano model produced less power out than in.

Adding extra weight top and bottom made a great improvement to the torque. Increasing the stroke of the linear drive improved the performance again. By scaling the device up with longer levers and more weight it appears that it may be possible for the output to significantly exceed the input.

Increasing the driven weight obviously increases the required input energy.
If the drives were both simply rotating, making them heavier and connecting multiple stages together as Mr Skinner did, would mean adding an even greater load on the input.

However, I do believe that if the input drives were reciprocating and balanced, it would be very easy to achieve a much higher output power, than the input power needed to operate the device.
...
Dear Dave,

Thanks for all your kind efforts to show and give explanations on this setup.

Regarding the output test, I think you are aware of the efficiency of the device you may have used for receiving an electrical output (here I assume you used a motor or alternator as a means for converting the mechanical output to electrical power) unless you have used a Prony break.

So just a few words if you could give on the details of the output measurement would be appreciated by many here including me.

Greetings,
Gyula
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 07-03-2014, 03:50 AM
Dave Q Dave Q is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Posts: 17
Thanks for the drawing, Charlie.

I can see what you mean by the top drive rotating.

On my model, I have a bearing on the lower end of the upper shaft.

Looking at the drawings, I don't see a bearing on Mr Skinner's shaft-to-block connection. If he had placed his bearing in the centre of his gimbal, then the
shaft would rotate with the mechanism attached beneath it. In which case the shaft would indeed rotate as his drawing shows.

The long elliptical travel shown in his drawing would provide a combination of both linear and rotational moments to the upper drive.

With the offset block arrangement, there would be no advantage in driving the upper shaft into rotation from above. If you follow me, the tilted shaft will cause its weight to rotate just as well with its upper end either rotated or reciprocated. Both methods take advantage of gravity in their operation.

Cisco and Mike and Gyula,

Thank you for your encouragement

I realized that the torque produced by this device can be tested statically.
My original weights just weren't heavy enough. As the torque is coming from gravity acting on the weights, adding more weight increased the torque
dramatically. So by loading the output with an equivalent or greater load to the input, it is easy to see if the available torque will drive it. Just by moving the input shaft to and fro by hand.

There is a lot of kinetic energy stored in the spinning weights, but if the load exceeds this static test load the device will slowly run down and fall out of time.

The weights and the stroke of the reciprocating drive are critical. If the present output of my model was to be doubled with a second inter-connected stage, there would be much more output power than input.
But only if the lifting and falling moments balanced out.
Otherwise we'd have two stages with the same efficiency as one stage.
I do believe that four interconnected stages offset by 90* would balance everything.

I'll take the present model apart and try building two interconnected and balanced reciprocating drives to test the principle that I've been trying to explain.

If I can demonstrate this, another video might be helpful.

Best regards,

Dave
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 07-03-2014, 04:49 AM
Cisco Cisco is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 5
Before you take your present model apart . . .

Hi Dave,

Two days ago, in post #315, you were planning to "connect it to a small generator and publish the test result a.s.a.p."
Is that still feasible?
One way or another, we're rooting for you.

Cisco
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 07-03-2014, 05:31 AM
marxist marxist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 181
drawings, weightlessness and acceleration

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Q View Post
....
The long elliptical travel shown in his drawing ...
Hi Dave,
thanks again for your work. I hope none that of the following observations will offend you.
Just to avoid misunderstandings:
There are no drawings available, done by Skinner.
The drawings you refer to were done by a member of this forum and depict this member's ideas based on the Pathe video of 1939

@ Dave and all
Please note that a mass flying out in an orbit exerts no force in the vertical direction (it only exerts force in the horizontal direction aka "centrifugal").
This is how weightlessness is simulated/produced.
Such a mass is weightless.

So while the upper mass (wrongly called "weight") is flying about in its orbit, no work is done while it is being lifted. And no work can be harvested by lowering that weight as long as it remains spinning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Q View Post
...But only if the lifting and falling moments balanced out.
If my above statements are true, then the lifting and lowering of the weights with Dave's linear drive mechanism will not produce a momentum and consequently lifting and falling moments can not balance out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Q View Post
...I had pointed out that this drive results in the rotating weight following a shallow figure of eight path in the vertical plane. Seen from above, the path is circular,
I think that seen from above the path of the upper weight in Dave's meccano model is elliptical - not circular. And this is good, as due to the elliptical orbit the weights get accelerated while being forced through the narrow curve of the ellipse. This happens twice per revolution, during the reversals of Dave's driving lever, .

I think, that having a second unit attached, an interchange of this reversal force(s) between the two units is possible and insofar a balancing (or reciprocal feeding) between two such mechanisms is possible.
__________________
 

Last edited by marxist; 07-03-2014 at 06:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 07-03-2014, 06:12 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,005
Skinner machine NOT a flywheel

Quote:
Originally Posted by purelyprimitives View Post
I think you are better off with one. At least then, you have some asymmetry and inertial propulsion as you say. The more I study Mr. Skinner's machine, it appears to be totally balanced and symmetrical which is not where you want to be.

For instance, we know that opposite sets of weights are constantly 180 degrees out of phase. If you were to measure two sinusoidal waveforms on a scope that were 180 degrees out of phase and hit the 'add' button, they would cancel each other out. So I would say that there is nothing 'additive' here. In fact, it would seem to resolve into being just a fancy flywheel. And we both know that there's no OU in a flywheel.
Multiple is better - scaling up to 4 pole means all frictional losses for the mechanism to rotate the common output wheel are divided by 4 instead of one quarter taking the whole loss, etc...

Asymmetrical in each quadrant is desirable and that is what is happening, but we don't want the inertial propulsion, we want all the output force to be concentrated into the output shaft and not to be dissipated in the whole machine moving across a floor.

There is no relationship with the Skinner machine and a flywheel - not in a "one-pole" system and not in a "four-pole" system.

I'm seeing the flywheel conversation go around in various areas, but there is no flywheel action here. I explained that before and I see Mike touched on it a bit.

Here is an extension to my past explanation and just looking at the operation is prima facie evidence that there is no flywheel action in the machine. That is not what it is about.

If the output is suddenly locked up - the lower weight will only swing around for a short period of time. As the lower shaft is locked in position and in its angle, there is the inside of the incline and the outside of the incline.

As the weight moves around towards the outside of the incline, it goes up against gravity losing some of its momentum and on its way back down, it picks up a bit, but the overall loss is greater than the gain meaning it is absolutely does not function as a flywheel.

If we have the same weight as the lower weight evenly distributed in a circle around a shaft and it is going the same speed as the Skinner machine and the mechanism stops, but the weight is allowed to continue to spin, it will spin for quite a while because of the even distribution of weight - even if it was on a tilt.

If you want to talk about flywheels, it has to be consistent with how a flywheel operates.

If we have a merry go round that is perfectly round with even distributed weight and it is spun, it will last a while because of this - it is designed to keep the momentum going with the least amount of loss.

Now take that same merry go round and put a protrusion on one part of it that hits a fixed protrusion from the ground every time it goes around one rotation. Each time it gives up some motion and slows down - that is a very sorry flywheel as it is completely contradictory to what a flywheel is. Well, this particular example is exactly what the Skinner lower weight is - NOT a flywheel. Even with the machine in motion, the lower weight is NOT a flywheel as it counters the need to have evenly distributed weight in order maintain its movement with the least amount of loss.

I really don't see how it can be logically argued to be a flywheel when the necessary parameters that are needed to be met are not even incorporated into the Skinner machine - not even in the slightest bit.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 07-03-2014, 09:52 AM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Hi all

Yes Aaron, it is not a flywheel, I have been saying this all along, that is not to say there isn't some stored energy in the masses, it is more "akin" to a counter weight on a crank shaft, notice I say akin, as it is not that either.

You have to look at that bottom weight in 3D

centrifugal<--------------->centripetal
i (load)
i
i -------> top of bottom weight moving
i
v
gravity

You need to look at why that bottom weight is tall, it is that very top end of the weight that has to be considered, this is so important. As load is applied to the output, the top of the bottom weights move much more than the bottom, in relation of what I have drawn above.

The other thing is the importance of the top drive driven by the motor, here is a better drawing of that (only one pair shown).

With careful looking at the video 3-4sec mark and the photo top section magnified, you can see this.

regards

Mike

PS. The gimbal is very important
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Skinner top drive A.JPG (61.2 KB, 43 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by Michael John Nunnerley; 07-03-2014 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 07-03-2014, 09:58 AM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Load on that diagram above should be under centripetal, Seems when posting it moved for some reason and I can't change it

regards

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
1939, 1939 gravity power, energy, force, free energy, gravity, gravity power, lift, overunity, power, weight, william f skinner, william skinner, skinner, william

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers