Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


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


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.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #721  
Old 05-31-2016, 02:50 PM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
Geometry

Armandino, let me recount my impressions of the geometry of the original Skinner machine. To me, it appears that the top of the lower shaft moves in a circle of about 4--5 inches.
I believe that the bottom of the upper shaft moves in a circle or ellipse that is the same size. From the bottom of the upper shaft to the gimbal is about 1 foot. It is about 4 feet to the top of the upper shaft. The circle (or ellipse) that is described by the top of the upper shaft is dictated by this ratio. The top of upper shaft will move in a circle that is 4 times the diameter of the circle travelled by the bottom of the upper shaft.
I can't say if the top of the upper shaft runs in a circle or an ellipse. But, I believe that the ratio between the part below the gimbal and part above the gimbal is an important aspect.

The original vid shows a (almost) side view. If you watch the 4 shafts, the amplitude of movement appears to be close to equal. Are 2 of the gimbals in side view while 2 of the gimbals are in end view? I can't say.
The lower shaft pivots / rotates at it's lowest point. The upper shaft rotates at a mid-point (not in the middle, naturally). The upper shaft uses leverage to move the weight,,, the lower shaft does not.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

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

  #722  
Old 06-01-2016, 07:56 AM
armandino armandino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
Armandino, let me recount my impressions of the geometry of the original Skinner machine. To me, it appears that the top of the lower shaft moves in a circle of about 4--5 inches.
I believe that the bottom of the upper shaft moves in a circle or ellipse that is the same size. From the bottom of the upper shaft to the gimbal is about 1 foot. It is about 4 feet to the top of the upper shaft. The circle (or ellipse) that is described by the top of the upper shaft is dictated by this ratio. The top of upper shaft will move in a circle that is 4 times the diameter of the circle travelled by the bottom of the upper shaft.
I can't say if the top of the upper shaft runs in a circle or an ellipse. But, I believe that the ratio between the part below the gimbal and part above the gimbal is an important aspect.

The original vid shows a (almost) side view. If you watch the 4 shafts, the amplitude of movement appears to be close to equal. Are 2 of the gimbals in side view while 2 of the gimbals are in end view? I can't say.
The lower shaft pivots / rotates at it's lowest point. The upper shaft rotates at a mid-point (not in the middle, naturally). The upper shaft uses leverage to move the weight,,, the lower shaft does not.
Hello,
I entered fully into cotruttiva phase of the mechanical system after thinking a lot and seen very often the original movie Skinner. After a year of reflection, I determined what could be, in my opinion, the dimensional aspects of everything that is part of the mechanism. I admit, it is very complex, requires competence and high notions of quantum physics.
*despite the many interpretations of the forum friends questioning everything is debatable making, sometimes, the path to the very rough truth, I came to my conslusioni and I realized what you see in the movie and much more you still do not I filmed. I would like to recall that the distance from the upper pivot (primary drive) to the wedge point made with constant velocity joint (self-derived) is important to determine how much power you want to dale LEVER. I will remember that my comments are from tests performed and so many changes. The top spins the bottom through a top of intersection with the plate. rotating the lever down is possible only if the lower weight ENTERS PHASE SYNCHRONIZED with the rotation of the upper lever. this movement is conditioned by the inclined axis distance from the center of gravity, from the upper weight, from brazzio which supports the lower weight, and the amount by weight of the same, from the speed of rotation of the upper lever and the amplitude that is running in output from the constant-velocity joint. certainly it is a little complicated, but with practice you solve problems. It is what I try to do, I hope good.:Saluti:
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 06-02-2016, 05:53 PM
armandino armandino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 24
replica skinner machine

Quote:
Originally Posted by mksboysal View Post
Hi guys,
The machine that are being discussed here I built it, it took me around four months to come to this completion, not finished yet. Enjoy the pictures. Frame size is 5 ft by 5 ft and the height is around 7 + ft. The lower weight is 340 lbs and the upper weight is around 75 lbs. As you can see the upper weight it's totally adjustable, you can slide back and forth if you want to. The driver motor is a 3 ph 1/8HP with a 56:1 gear ratio planetary gear it is controlled with 1/4 HP VFD drive. When I turn this thing on it's scary to stay close by! So I stand back 5,6 ft away when that 340 lbs rotates at 33 rpm or little higher you have to respect the "force in motion" under no load prime mover motor consumes 80 to 90 watts, the output power is still being tested!!! During the operation the frame sways a little but I have plans to make it firmer by installing cross braces all around the frame. Come along tool is temporarily hold the lower weight and does a good job with it. 90 decree weight lowers the input power close to 25 to 30 % anyway if you have a ? or comment drop me a line. If some of you need help? I maybe be available to help you design yours.
Hello,
Now I've seen pictures of your creation. finally another person that after reflection, builds a machine. if I may, I must make you see that is missing the top formed by the lever part, necessary to multiply the force of the motor and the load it must suffer the engine. as well as the structure was built in my opinion will not stand for a long time, it will break. You should be securely fixed to the wall otherwise be walking around the room or smashes. not seen robust support angles and are concerned about your health. as well as think about the utility of the machinery, you should pay more attention to your skin. the fear that you've had is legitimate.
I may worthwhile I invite you to watch movies mei, maybe you can be useful.
Do not stop, I think that we are few to try.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 06-26-2016, 02:09 PM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...pskjnqxl14.jpg
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 06-26-2016, 09:20 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
input method?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
That looks like a nice solid build.

How are you going to drive the input?
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 06-29-2016, 12:44 AM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
The rod is 193 lbs. The connectors are 1 inch aluminum and can be disconnected at both ends. The axle is tube, 1.75 O.D. and 1.25 I.D. The plywood with the hole is temporary to guide the shaft until it has more pieces. I took the rod off to continue without the humongous weight. The uprights are 12 ft. tall. The base plates are 1/4 inch. The lower bearing housing is 4 inch bar with 2 very large bearings in it. 3206B double row, angular contact. Below the bearing holder I have a 1/2 X 6 in. drive plate bolted to the axle. It has mounting holes for the drive pulley.
I will probably use a Gilmer belt.
The next step is the translation plate. Both the upper and lower axles are mounted in that plate. The upper is fixed. The lower floats. I'm guessing that the 2 axles are about 2.5 inches apart. Does anybody have any different ideas?

The bearing for the top of the lower axle is; http://www.precisiontaperedrollerbea...motorcycle.jpg
I had planned to use the same style bearing for the pivot on the upper axle instead of the gimbal. BUT, I'm wondering if the width-to-length bias of the gimbal is necessary to get the correct movement. ??????

On the Terawatt device, my contention is that both wheels rotate at the same rpm. This would have one of them constantly accelerating and decelerating because they are locked together magnetically. If the upper rod of the Skinner device runs in an elliptic, it too would be changing velocity constantly.

I can make the translation plate but, I can't actually install it anywhere until I have the gimbal. Any ideas on a gimbal vs a bearing?

EDIT, "How are you going to drive the input? " ,,,, TBD!
__________________
 

Last edited by Danny B; 06-30-2016 at 01:04 AM. Reason: incomplete
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 07-03-2016, 01:30 PM
h2ocommuter's Avatar
h2ocommuter h2ocommuter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fresno Ca,
Posts: 146
Send a message via Skype™ to h2ocommuter
Gimbal vr roller or ball bearings

Hi Danny, I have been trying various bearings and have concluded the ball bearings are far less capable of of handling the objective tilting of the bearing under load. I believe the gimbal is the best because it only requires each of the two bearing surfaces to accomplish one objective movement at a time. unlike the ball or roller bearing. That being said; The roller bearing surface is superior to the ball bearing because it does not object to the lateral movement of the bearing in the race surface by design. With the ball bearing the surface however having a concave race the bearing movement sliding at one direction and rolling in the other is highly objectionable, so you can see the roller bearing is the superior for this application, that is if you choose bearings rather than the gimbal. One last thing about the vertical weight on the bottom bearing, I am going to be using a stationery thrust roller bearing on a CV joint to carry all the weight. Like the hub in a car with 2 bearings and tapered races.

My model is going to be small, maybe 4-5 feet. I may make some metal gimbals

Edit:
if you simply take a pencil, make a dot on paper, hold the point of the pencil on the dot, rotate the pencil round and round and observe the top of the eraser parallel to the paper you will have no up and down movement.
On the contrary if you tilt the pencil 1/2 of a degree off of the vertical you will notice the up and down variation.
If you don't believe me take a megaphone or any cone that is in relatively good condition and put the small end on the paper and tilt it off of vertical you will see plainly that this is the critical and only thing that will make your machine go up and down.

This is probably the most important thing about your build that most people cant figure out how to solve. When I get it figured out I will share the solution.
__________________
 

Last edited by h2ocommuter; 07-03-2016 at 01:47 PM. Reason: Confusion about the up and down movement
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 07-03-2016, 07:21 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
The Problem AND the Solution

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2ocommuter View Post
Edit:

if you simply take a pencil, make a dot on paper, hold the point of the pencil on the dot, rotate the pencil round and round and observe the top of the eraser parallel to the paper you will have no up and down movement.

On the contrary if you tilt the pencil 1/2 of a degree off of the vertical you will notice the up and down variation.

If you don't believe me take a megaphone or any cone that is in relatively good condition and put the small end on the paper and tilt it off of vertical you will see plainly that this is the critical and only thing that will make your machine go up and down.

This is probably the most important thing about your build that most people cant figure out how to solve. When I get it figured out I will share the solution.
I've already told you all many times that in your example, the eraser doesn't change height with a circular input.

I've also already provided the solution over and over, which is why the elliptical input is necessary because that DOES make the weight change height. It can be done with Skinner's elliptical method as I've shown in my videos or it can be done by taking a bicycle wheel and tilting it with the input lever in the wheel - tilting the wheel causes an elliptical input, which changes the height of the weight. It is highest at the narrow end of the ellipse and lowest as the far ends of the ellipse.

Without changing height, the machine doesn't regauge itself or reset a new potential difference between 2 different heights and misses out on utilizing gravitational potential as an input energy course into the machine - its really common sense.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 07-04-2016, 01:35 AM
h2ocommuter's Avatar
h2ocommuter h2ocommuter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fresno Ca,
Posts: 146
Send a message via Skype™ to h2ocommuter
Distance inequitities with off-center allignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
I've already told you all many times that in your example, the eraser doesn't change height with a circular input.

I've also already provided the solution over and over, which is why the elliptical input is necessary because that DOES make the weight change height. It can be done with Skinner's elliptical method as I've shown in my videos or it can be done by taking a bicycle wheel and tilting it with the input lever in the wheel - tilting the wheel causes an elliptical input, which changes the height of the weight. It is highest at the narrow end of the ellipse and lowest as the far ends of the ellipse.

Without changing height, the machine doesn't regauge itself or reset a new potential difference between 2 different heights and misses out on utilizing gravitational potential as an input energy course into the machine - its really common sense.
Please watch the video first.
Without any cause you build a case against math. I will not belabor the insinuation That Simple math has no part in this gravity machine. I have reduced the math to a visual example. please don't flagrantly discard this logic and example. I regard you and your efforts with this forum highly, I just can't stand the insinuation that William Skinners device moved up and down. If you have any visual proof. of this as you may like to show us all when the machine is working. I see no slide components on Williams' machine that would suggest any up and down movement.

The minimum of 1/2" would be plenty of proof I would love to see the transition coupler, or the up and down movement of any bearing or slide component that is there. I am sorry if I have missed this in any way.

However hyperbole is not acceptable it is always discarded. That is common sense
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=ufFbtK9hZOY

If you choose not to respectfully engage with me I will reluctantly concede your forum.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 07-04-2016, 03:06 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
elliptical input = secondary always falling

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2ocommuter View Post
Please watch the video first.
Without any cause you build a case against math. I will not belabor the insinuation That Simple math has no part in this gravity machine. I have reduced the math to a visual example. please don't flagrantly discard this logic and example. I regard you and your efforts with this forum highly, I just can't stand the insinuation that William Skinners device moved up and down. If you have any visual proof. of this as you may like to show us all when the machine is working. I see no slide components on Williams' machine that would suggest any up and down movement.

The minimum of 1/2" would be plenty of proof I would love to see the transition coupler, or the up and down movement of any bearing or slide component that is there. I am sorry if I have missed this in any way.

However hyperbole is not acceptable it is always discarded. That is common sense
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=ufFbtK9hZOY

If you choose not to respectfully engage with me I will reluctantly concede your forum.
Skinner's machine has an elliptical input - because this is a fact based on the visual evidence of the machine itself, that means the level that the TOP of the lower lower weight changes height. The elliptical input is obvious from this observation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA9wHJsFzm4 and is explained in more detail here: https://youtu.be/JolNozy8UEY?t=34m50s

This is the simplest elliptical input I can come up with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbMUrY5MynA

It does not mean that the entire weight moves up and down and there is a difference. It is the level of the top of the weight that changes while the bottom stays at the same pivot point.

Take your pencil example and move it in a circle, the level at which the eraser is at does not change height.

Take the same pencil and rotate it in an elliptical path, the height at which the eraser is at changes height - at the narrow end of the ellipse, the eraser is at the lowest height and at towards the center of the ellipse, the eraser will be at the highest.



Draw a picture like the above and stick your pencil lead on the dot in the center.

Rotate the eraser so it follows the circular path - the level that the eraser is at will not change and it will stay at the exact same level.

Rotate the eraser so it follows the elliptical path, the level that the eraser is at changes height.

The ellipse is exaggerated in the picture above to simply demonstrate the point and in Skinner's machine, the ellipse is not that exaggerated, but is just enough to get the top of the weight to change its height while the bottom of the weight stays where it is just like the pencil lead stays where it is.

For one, the lower weight turns freely around the shaft and is disconnected from it - no matter where you rotate the lower shaft or how, the weight will be "always falling" to the inside incline of the shaft.

For two, the weight is "always falling" when it is rotated in an elliptical path - when it gets towards the wide part of the ellipse, the top of the weight is at the highest and then it will fall, using gravity to help accelerate it towards the narrow end of the ellipse where it is the lowest. Then with the translation plate mechanism, it will whip back in the opposite direction without bucking against anything using the momentum to carry it back to its "highest" position at the wide part of the ellipse and the momentum carries it with the assistance of gravitational input back towards the narrow end of the ellipse at the opposite end and this continues to repeat. This is the entire point of why it is called "Gravity Power". Using a circular input prevents this added gravitational potential from contributing.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 07-04-2016, 03:16 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
top of lower weight changes height without moving up and down

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2ocommuter View Post
I looked at your video, you misunderstood what I meant and my previous post should clarify that - I never said the entire weight is moving up and down because it doesn't - just the level of the top of the lower weight changes height if rotated in an ellipse, which is not possible with a circular input. I hope that clarifies what I'm talking about.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 07-04-2016, 03:22 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
elliptical vs circular side and top views

For further clarification, here is a side view added similar to your video where you can see the top of the weight will change height in an elliptical orbit.

__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 07-05-2016, 02:34 PM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
Wobble plate

Damn, I missed a bunch of posts. I don't seem to get any notification. Everyone is aware that Tesla was very big on building and not particularly interested in theoretical mumbo jumbo.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...psjjgaepbe.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...psrbueve5k.jpg
The center to center distance is 3 inches,,, best guess.
Next, comes the gimbal.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 07-07-2016, 04:42 AM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
will work for dimensions

I figure 10 inches from the gimbal to the wobble plate. Does anyone have different ideas? I have the material for the gimbal. Just need to do the machining.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 07-15-2016, 02:12 PM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
pics

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...pscsdgoiwx.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...psqg2akoru.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...psqmlkxn69.jpg
__________________
 

Last edited by Danny B; 07-17-2016 at 08:24 PM. Reason: more pic
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 07-21-2016, 09:13 AM
armandino armandino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 24
gimbal and more

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
I figure 10 inches from the gimbal to the wobble plate. Does anyone have different ideas? I have the material for the gimbal. Just need to do the machining.

hello, let me introduce my realization of the gimbal installed in my system. I used a constant velocity joint of a small Italian car (Panda). I cut it in two for the length by removing the post of a thousand lines. in this way the remaining piece allows it to be pierced by the axis tilted. I added the rubber dust cover and you're done.
I hope you put to good use.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20160424_111233.jpg (193.4 KB, 21 views)
File Type: jpg 20160424_111302.jpg (252.6 KB, 17 views)
File Type: jpg 20160424_111328.jpg (167.0 KB, 18 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 07-21-2016, 09:20 AM
armandino armandino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by armandino View Post
hello, let me introduce my realization of the gimbal installed in my system. I used a constant velocity joint of a small Italian car (Panda). I cut it in two for the length by removing the post of a thousand lines. in this way the remaining piece allows it to be pierced by the axis tilted. I added the rubber dust cover and you're done.
I hope you put to good use.
this is my tangential acceleration system that allows to obtain an increase of the output torque.
See you soon
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20160424_112308.jpg (219.8 KB, 30 views)
File Type: jpg 20160718_174537.jpg (323.1 KB, 28 views)
File Type: jpg 20160718_174631.jpg (258.4 KB, 29 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 07-21-2016, 10:56 AM
armandino armandino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 24
Base bearing

Quote:
Originally Posted by armandino View Post
this is my tangential acceleration system that allows to obtain an increase of the output torque.
See you soon
I realized in this way the sealing system and of all the load rotation. it is de bearing of the hub of the wheel of a machine (used by many brands). this hub is ideal for our realization as within two different diameter bearings are installed. in this way it acts as a conical bearing which can weigh many Kg. and resists lateral traction as if it were mounted on the machine. in the upper part I installed a crown of the transmission of a Quad, step 420, and with chain connect all four rotors.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20160424_111913.jpg (175.4 KB, 28 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 07-24-2016, 02:16 PM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
Weight relationships

I'm still trying to work out the size of the upper weight. In this picture, you can see the lower shaft restrained in an artificial orbit (the hole in the plywood). It takes X amount of force in pounds to pull the shaft away from the described circle.
CIMG0125_zpskjnqxl14.jpg Photo by DannnyB | Photobucket
In the video, Skinner moves the lower weight with his hand. The upper weight appears to be freely rotating in it's preferred path and bringing the lower shaft/weight along for the ride.
That would mean that the top weight has a weight of X+ to overcome the natural fall to the natural path of the lower weight. The relationship is complicated by the fact that the upper weight is positioned 90 degrees offset from the natural inclination of the lower weight. If it were in apposition, it would only need to weigh X+. Since it is offset, I believe that it needs to be X++.
I need to do more building and more testing. It appears that the lower weight is always 90 degrees from achieving it's at-rest position.
To be continued
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 08-08-2016, 01:22 AM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
Upper weight

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28...psipm0mqwq.jpg
I used about 55 lbs of lead for the upper weight. It's in a steel sleeve.
Next comes the top plate and shaft drive. The upper shaft currently runs in an artificial orbit defined by the hole in the plywood. It's too big at the moment. There is a huge amount of push against the periphery of the wood circle. Any elliptical path would have to overcome the natural fall of the weighted shaft.
I thought that I had the answer in the design of the gimbal. Wrong!

2 thoughts come to mind;
The gimbal could be designed so that it had a built-in limit to travel in one axis.
The upper pivot point for the drive could be offset from the center of the gimbal. This machine is VERY sensitive to level. That would make the weight tend to fall to the lowest position. That still wouldn't make the shaft break away from it's outermost possible orbit.
I'm going to set up a drive and see what happens.
In the original Skinner video, 2 pairs of weights are oriented in the X axis and 2 are oriented in the Y axis. The opposing in-out movements are what keeps the machine from shaking apart. North-South move as a pair. East-West move as a pair and are clocked to North-South.
The first 6 seconds of the vid are NOT oriented in either axis. If they were, you could look at the 2 pairs of shafts to see just how much eccentricity is built in.
BTW, the film is misleading. It never shows him starting out the several hundred pounds of weight with the little string.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #741  
Old 08-29-2016, 02:42 AM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
Progress

After MUCH thought, I'm not convinced that the upper shaft runs in anything but a circle. If you watch the vid (for the umpteenth time), you see that the maximum angle of inclination for the north-south shafts appears to be equal to the east-west shafts. What portion of the rotation is truncated? The drive can't very well be a reciprocating slider. If the drive were a slider, it would have to have a link to convert linear motion into rotary motion. This could never describe anything but a circle because the anchor of the link would act as an axis for a circle.
Anything with an axle must describe a circle when in motion,,, at a given, fixed distance from the center. The "swash plate" idea doesn't look viable because the drive motors would have to be inclined. It would also need Heim joints for drive connections. You would expect the resultant elliptical orbits to be apparent by comparing the north side to the west side.
The only way that I can see to drive the top shaft in a ellipse is to drive it in a track that would have to be below the link. I see no sign of a track.
The top of the shaft is easy to see and there doesn't look to be a bunch of complicated linkage.

The top of the lower shaft has about 40 lbs of constant sideways pull. It demands to move outward as far as possible. It is only restrained by the wobble plate. The wobble plate is restrained by the limit of angular deflection of the upper shaft. Whatever orbit the top of the upper shaft follows, the top of the lower shaft follows. They are solidly linked in their relative angles.
The sideways pull of the top of the upper shaft is about 10 lbs. But, it has about a 5--1 leverage against the sideways deflection of the lower shaft.
The upper shaft prevails on position.

I bought a motor and speed controller. 12 VDC. I also got a Manta motor-generator. I'll just keep everything 12 VDC to start.
The wobble plate is locked into position by the gimbal. If the upper shaft is driven by a link of some sort, I don't see any way for the upper shaft to follow any path except circular.
Skinner repeatedly mentioned "eccentrics". I believe that the quad shafts are driven by an arrangement much like a windshield wiper. This would qualify as eccentric. For 4 shafts, this would need 2 linkage rods and 2 cross rods.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 09-03-2016, 12:57 AM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
examination of eccentric mechanisms

Skinner's machine has 4 driven shafts. This complicates any attempt to drive them in an elliptic path. Here is a vid of a device that generates an elliptic path; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ukHWJA_pOg
Here is an alternative to the Scotch Yoke; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zae2ZePQTwQ
Another; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPg_nubcYOg
One more; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPg_nubcYOg
All of these devices use some kind of sliding guide. Skinner moves his weights in pairs so, it would take 4 pairs of sliding guides.
Here is a double Scotch Yoke but, because it has a center axle, it describes a circle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iedyiuLBRbE
If a device doesn't have a center axle, it is very difficult to drive.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 09-11-2016, 05:12 PM
Danny B Danny B is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 3,171
Pumping or not

Iím still not convinced either way about the upper shaft running in a circle. Skinner used the term "eccentric". He didn't say "Ellipse."
The upper shaft acts as a positioner/actuator for the lower shaft. BUT, it has about a 5---1 leverage ratio. Any eccentricity at the top of the upper shaft is reduced to 1/5 at the bottom of the shaft.
The device gains mechanical advantage because the lower weight is always falling. Does there also need to be a "pumping" action? Dunno yet.
Because of the upper weight, the top of the upper shaft is always falling strongly away from the center. To make it follow anything except a circular path would require a chain drive or a pair of sliding guides. I see no sign of these.

The Skinner device is in dynamic balance. The weights move in pairs and both pairs are locked together. If a weight had some sort of pumping action, it seems like it would be cancelled by being physically locked to 3 other weights that weren't in the same phase.
The Skinner device is very sensitive to both level and concentricity.
IF the pivot for the upper shaft were not directly above the pivot for the lower shaft, the weight would create a pumping action.
The shaft would move in a circular path BUT, the weight would have a "period" of climbing and a period of falling.

There is another possibility for a pumping action. I used a constant-velocity universal joint,,, Rezeppa.
IF you built with a normal 4-point universal joint, they are NOT constant velocity. The lower shaft would speed up and slow down depending on the phase of the u-jolint. Once again, I don't know how much effect this would have if all 4 weights are locked together.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 09-11-2016, 07:54 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
pumping action

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
Iím still not convinced either way about the upper shaft running in a circle. Skinner used the term "eccentric". He didn't say "Ellipse."
The upper shaft acts as a positioner/actuator for the lower shaft. BUT, it has about a 5---1 leverage ratio. Any eccentricity at the top of the upper shaft is reduced to 1/5 at the bottom of the shaft.
The device gains mechanical advantage because the lower weight is always falling. Does there also need to be a "pumping" action? Dunno yet.
Because of the upper weight, the top of the upper shaft is always falling strongly away from the center. To make it follow anything except a circular path would require a chain drive or a pair of sliding guides. I see no sign of these.

The Skinner device is in dynamic balance. The weights move in pairs and both pairs are locked together. If a weight had some sort of pumping action, it seems like it would be cancelled by being physically locked to 3 other weights that weren't in the same phase.
The Skinner device is very sensitive to both level and concentricity.
IF the pivot for the upper shaft were not directly above the pivot for the lower shaft, the weight would create a pumping action.
The shaft would move in a circular path BUT, the weight would have a "period" of climbing and a period of falling.

There is another possibility for a pumping action. I used a constant-velocity universal joint,,, Rezeppa.
IF you built with a normal 4-point universal joint, they are NOT constant velocity. The lower shaft would speed up and slow down depending on the phase of the u-jolint. Once again, I don't know how much effect this would have if all 4 weights are locked together.
For the upper input lever to rotate in an ellipse, it doesn't require anything that you mention. The upper input lever is connected to a small swing arm at the end of the oscillating cross bars. This causes the lower weight to change it's center of balance and causes the pumping action 2 times per rotation.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 09-17-2016, 08:09 AM
armandino armandino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 24
pumping action

hello, it was very tiring but I finally put together four modules that, in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_MUqwa-pZc
rotating with 45 rpm. The mechanism has a moment of acceleration-pumping. The lower weight has a greater pumping of the upper weight and I realized this effect dislocating the lower vertical axis. I moved the base anchored to the floor of 5 cm. consequently the rotation is no longer in a horizontal plane but inclined therefore the weights have a moment of ascent and a descent where is the gain, and I have synchronized the fall of all the weights opposed in pairs so as to cancel the vibrations. the result is a moment of acceleration of 600 kg weights. I will bring to 100 rpm. I hope that everything remains intact. Then I execute the first load test with a generator derived from a wind turbine fall and destroyed. What do you think?

armandino
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 09-18-2016, 03:54 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
needs elliptical input

Quote:
Originally Posted by armandino View Post
hello, it was very tiring but I finally put together four modules that, in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_MUqwa-pZc
rotating with 45 rpm. The mechanism has a moment of acceleration-pumping. The lower weight has a greater pumping of the upper weight and I realized this effect dislocating the lower vertical axis. I moved the base anchored to the floor of 5 cm. consequently the rotation is no longer in a horizontal plane but inclined therefore the weights have a moment of ascent and a descent where is the gain, and I have synchronized the fall of all the weights opposed in pairs so as to cancel the vibrations. the result is a moment of acceleration of 600 kg weights. I will bring to 100 rpm. I hope that everything remains intact. Then I execute the first load test with a generator derived from a wind turbine fall and destroyed. What do you think?

armandino
Nice build but you will never find what you are looking for with circular input of the upper input levers. But since you have it circular, you might as well take the measurements and compare to elliptical when you want to do what Skinner actually did.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 09-18-2016, 04:34 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Brilliant!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by armandino View Post
hello, it was very tiring but I finally put together four modules that, in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_MUqwa-pZc
rotating with 45 rpm. The mechanism has a moment of acceleration-pumping. The lower weight has a greater pumping of the upper weight and I realized this effect dislocating the lower vertical axis. I moved the base anchored to the floor of 5 cm. consequently the rotation is no longer in a horizontal plane but inclined therefore the weights have a moment of ascent and a descent where is the gain, and I have synchronized the fall of all the weights opposed in pairs so as to cancel the vibrations. the result is a moment of acceleration of 600 kg weights. I will bring to 100 rpm. I hope that everything remains intact. Then I execute the first load test with a generator derived from a wind turbine fall and destroyed. What do you think?

armandino
Armandino,

Totally excellent model! WOW, that was a lot of work. This should allow you to determine, once and for all, whether a circular motion is capable of producing a gravitational gain in a mechanism like this, or if the elliptical motion and pumping action Aaron is talking about is required.

Now comes the hard part: TESTING! First step is DON'T BREAK YOUR MODEL!! You do not have to make it go 100 rpm to test it. Right now, your model is going almost as fast as Skinner's was in his film. That should be fast enough for initial testing.

You will need a watt-meter on your drive motor and a calibrated braking mechanism (dynamometer) on your mechanical output. The first data point will be to see the RATIO of input to output. If loading the output has a 1-to-1 ratio of loading the input, then Aaron is right, and it is not really producing a gain. If the input to output ratio is different than 1-to-1, then a circular drive may still have merit.

I will say that early on in the understanding of this machine, Aaron and I did try a number of circular drive mechanisms, (at my suggestion) and none of them showed anything other than a direct linkage between input and output. I was quite disappointed, but it did reinforce Aaron's evaluation of the motion taken by the upper drive system.

I look forward to your test results.

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 09-18-2016, 07:08 PM
goldpro goldpro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 35
wow! That's a very impressive build!

I noticed that starting at about the 53 second mark of the video the
upper weight farthest from the camera doesn't turn at a constant speed.
It seems to speed up and slow down.
I'm not sure about the others.
the two to the right of the camera seem to turn at the same speed.

What horsepower is the motor?

I hope you can do what Peter suggested.

good Luck.

Tom
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 09-19-2016, 11:13 AM
armandino armandino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 24
hello, thanks for the encouragement. E 'fair to say that I share the thought of Aaron on the effectiveness of the elliptical motion. What I have realized is a movement that is characterized by a tangential acceleration allows to increase the kinetic forces that arise from the movement itself. are laws of physics to be applied as the bible. I have tried to apply an acceleration at the entrance of the higher weights and I noticed negative behavior because this machine uses a transmission output from the effect of a drag lever of the lower weights with slingshots effect. to get it is required that the upper movement of the lever enters into "coupling phase" with lower weights. in fact, the weight of the push needed otherwise only turn the upper lever otherwise weights would remain firm. The acceleration is busting this coupling. of course it was my test with the mechanics available. it may be that other mechanisms you can achieve different effects. however, I have reported the primary drive with a linear rotational input. because I am absolutely convinced that an acceleration system allows ottenerre a gain, I moved the application on lower weights decentralizing vertical axis of 5 cm. and synchronizing the other rotors while achieving a fall of weights in a single moment. I got an acceleration of the rotation that, given the total weight of 600 kg, achieved significant energy gain accumulated what must yet be quantified, that's why telle my concerns about the structural seal. the synchronism of torque rotors allows me to undo uscillanti forces that would otherwise be uncontrollable. we hope well.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 09-20-2016, 02:20 AM
goldpro goldpro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 35
Looks like the weights are not in step properly with their
dance partner diagonally across.

If you watch the original Gravity Power video at the 13 second mark
you can see as they slow down that when any weight is turned
toward it's opposite they are both as close together as possible.
This applies to both top & bottom weights I think and shown more
clearly in the film with the bottom weights. This is necessary to
keep the whole machine from gyrating apart or across the floor.

I advise against increasing rpm unless you reset the chain to
coordinate them.

that nut on the bottom of the motor shaft is loose.

keep going!

Tom
__________________
 
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.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers