William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[Michael John Nunnerley]

The end wheels on the oscillator bar can go in a circle, but there is no time that the top of the lever actually traces a circle in space - it is only elliptical.

You're right about the top (middle weight), as it moves around, it reinforces the elliptical movement of the top of the lever as I have shown in the drawings I posted yesterday.

Yes your right, it is just the point about over loading the output, the lever pulls in toward the center axis untill there is no offset on that cam, that is when it will go round and round and not supply drive. Basicly it stops without the input stopping, those cams will just go around on the end of the shaft, it was his way to mainly only use the weights to provide power. As everything lines up on one axis normally it would become a direct drive to output, but here it disengages all of a sudden from the point of max torque (torque mass ratio) for those weights, and then the drive hits free run.

I think it is quite brilliant, a lot of thought has gone into this, and was not the only machine he built, seems he had various attemps at getting it right.

I would like to build this, I'm just not in a position to do so at the moment. I think some kind of crowd funding would be good and have it built at an engineering/fabrication firm. I'm off on my usual trip to France for 10 days or so, when I return maybe we can talk about this.

regards

Mike

[Aaron]

elliptical orbit

@aaron; have been watching "1939 Gravity Power Reverse Engineering Details FULL VERSION" and I appreciate the work and thought you put into this... I don't have 2 years to have a solid opinion... and I really have to differ... you started with a horizontal drive only... and it's circular coming from the top and through the 2 axis gimbal with the axis at the same level will remain circular.

When my lower weight is rotating fast, the shaft is moving in an elliptical orbit - the wheel it is connected to is tilted at a few degrees - it is only circular on it's own plane but in relation to the path the shaft traces, it is elliptical.

[Aaron]

elliptical and top weight assistance in rotation

All this arguing over circular and elliptical, well it is both, it is the way Skinner had driven the top of the shaft so as it had this interreaction. I believe that if you do not move that middle weight to start the machine, then the drive on the end of the shaft will just go round and round and not move anything.

The end wheels on the oscillator bar can go in a circle, but there is no time that the top of the lever actually traces a circle in space - it is only elliptical.

You're right about the top (middle weight), as it moves around, it reinforces the elliptical movement of the top of the lever as I have shown in the drawings I posted yesterday.

[Aaron]

elliptical orbit

Not being a mechanical engineer, I still wanted to make something useful. To see what is going on. to feel it with my own hands and more.
So I took apart a standing lamp, took a bucket, a bicycle wheel and some other parts and fitted it all together. The result can be seen here: gravity, concept for capture - YouTube

Just for fun, if you squeeze two opposing sides of your bucket together, you will make a somewhat elliptical shape for the roller blade wheel to move around.

The John Device really is a completely different machine and has no ability to have any gain.

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.

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.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

More load produces more torque in the machine, quite brilliant, also it can't be over loaded, as more load is applied, the top lever will move more toward the center axis of the gimbal, when it hits that center then the drive just turns on the end of the lever.

regards

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

deslomeslager

what you have shown is good, the only thing is the center weight on the Skinner machine is interreactive with the top drive.

All this arguing over circular and elliptical, well it is both, it is the way Skinner had driven the top of the shaft so as it had this interreaction. I believe that if you do not move that middle weight to start the machine, then the drive on the end of the shaft will just go round and round and not move anything.

Here is my quick drawing of this

regards

Mike

PS: there is a typo on the drawing, should read circle and not circule, I changed my description and dit not remove the u

[deslomeslager]

my share, what I think is the basic concept

Not being a mechanical engineer, I still wanted to make something useful. To see what is going on. to feel it with my own hands and more.
So I took apart a standing lamp, took a bucket, a bicycle wheel and some other parts and fitted it all together. The result can be seen here: gravity, concept for capture - YouTube

For as far as I can tell, the part which I have build is the basic part, needed to capture some gravitational power. And I see it is the same in the John Device as in WF Skinners device. I think Skinner used his weights up standing (and tilting) as this way it uses the least space horizontally. And in the John device bigger weights are used, I guess just because those were at hand. And as for me: I am using a bicycle wheel just because I had it at hand.

In a test I added a much bigger weight, to see if the rod can still easily be moved sidewards. Yes, it is. But my self build device was not able to support to much weight as it starts hopping all over the place. But I made it as concept (not proof of concept, I am not proving anything).

Please ask or tell me what to do from here on. I am limited in engineering but I will surely make changes if it adds to it (to turn it in some sort of proof).

Perhaps I gave you some ideas for testing this as well? That is why I am sharing. Even if it is wrong or right, sharing is caring.

[h2ocommuter]

TheoriaApophasis, that is very interesting writing you reference. although I do appreciate reading mostly technical information I have not read anything about gravity, However the information that Jefimenko had written surly could enlighten many in the search to understand the properties of gravity. Great link! also the reference about O Heaviside's contributions on this matter are very welcome. great post thanks.

[d3x0r]

Skinner gimbals examined...
2 clips 0:36-0:40 and 0:46-0:51 at normal speed and 1/8 speed...
(not finished processing....)
(looks like video crashed in publishing.... never finished) will attempt again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxIRaJlTD4Y (time clips above referenced from here)



Reconsidering gimbal axis offset... the gimbal axis points are not separated (looks that way when looking at the right side one... at 0:46 - 0:51 ) but when looking at the one in front (0:36-0:40) the light is brighter, and reveals that the pivot axis is at the same point... (image is a zoomed image from this point)

So... circular.

If it was offset, the top one determines the long eccentricity... making the lower portion of the shaft travel a further distance (to entirely go back what I said before )

@aaron; have been watching "1939 Gravity Power Reverse Engineering Details FULL VERSION" and I appreciate the work and thought you put into this... I don't have 2 years to have a solid opinion... and I really have to differ... you started with a horizontal drive only... and it's circular coming from the top and through the 2 axis gimbal with the axis at the same level will remain circular.

[Aaron]

purelyprimitives inability to cope with reality

No one was censored. However, even though Dave was allegedly not the intended target of certain comments, he was unfortunately made to feel as though they were aimed at him simply because he was trying to offer a different viewpoint.

NO - nobody is "made to feel" anything. There is what there is and then there is what someone can turn it into - everyone has to take responsibility for how they want to interpret reality. There are plenty of different viewpoints in this thread that counter mine - you are simply afraid to answer a simple question that disproves all your counter claims about the Skinner machine being a flywheel and you are incapable of dealing with it.

[h2ocommuter]

Rotary Lever Manipulation

Thanks Gyula, That is so funny, I did not see them here then.

Anyway I am pretty convinced that Skinner did use some sort of offset concentric to manipulate the drive levers. Anyway without some sort of higher quality machining tools I have decided to use a complete circular motion to rotate the upper levers.

As I did get most of the primary machine completed I have serious alignment issues that must be perfected to my satisfaction. Just simple stuff, Nothing unusual.

First off I need to stabilize the three major framing components because as much as I tried to align all the vertical axes I did not get it done as accurate as I wanted.

I uploaded a video.
YouTube

[TheoriaApophasis]

Soooo, what do any of you folks know about O. Heavisides COGRAVITATIONAL field?

(what I REALLY MEANT WAS, ......do you know about it and have you STUDIED IT?)


Heaviside

Gravitation and Cogravitation: Developing Newton's Theory of Gravitation to its Physical and Mathematical Conclusion: Oleg D. Jefimenko: 9780917406157: Amazon.com: Books




Jefimenko's expansion, or generalization, is based on the existence of the second gravitational force field, the "cogravitational, or Heaviside's, field". This is might also be called a gravimagnetic field. It represents a physical approach profoundly different from the time-space geometry approach of the Einstein general theory of relativity. Oliver Heaviside first predicted this field in the article "A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy" (1893).





( I know this is actually the dielectric field, since all mass is the product of stellar 'condensates' of dielectrcity).

[purelyprimitives]

what happened? was someone censored?

No one was censored. However, even though Dave was allegedly not the intended target of certain comments, he was unfortunately made to feel as though they were aimed at him simply because he was trying to offer a different viewpoint.

[d3x0r]

And... it's a mutually cancelling eccentricity, if the top does move back and forth, and it's the lower pivot that determines the elongation, the lower pivot is an in-out direction, which would cancel the top side to side motion....
Edit:
actually it's probably the pivot mounted to the frame that determines eccentricity... so it may be accentuated... still see no motion in the top drive though.

[d3x0r]

Ok - you see the top of the rods are attached to little bars or wheels at the end of the oscillating bars that rocks the lever back and forth. However, as the tops of the levers are rotating in a circle at the end of the oscillating bars - as the long crossbar goes back and forth, it changes the location in space where the center of axis is for the top of the lever moving in a circle meaning the motion IS elliptical.

That John Device isn't doing any real work other than overcoming bearing friction to move the weight at the bottom and that movement is directly proportional to the input motor. The claims of how much energy it takes to move the weight in a circle is misleading - apply a load to the bottom of that shaft and everything will come to a halt and the motor will smoke.

You should be able to copy and image from another location and paste it right into the post.

Video clip of machine in first portion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfAq7f-Y-A

As far as I know, this is the only evidence available for its function.

The top doesn't move except as the camera jitters a little to start (or rather the film is stretched and scratched to start with... so it's probably slightly twisted causing a side to side motion, which the whole machine undergoes.

Okay so I added a significant offset to the pivots of the joint... and ya, I guess it traces an ellipse. Although, with such a short end sticking out of the gimbal thing, not sure the eccentricity is even notable. I mean I have a 1.5 times longer shaft after the pivot than above... and a much more accentuated distance on the distance between the pivots....

offset uv joint.jpg
offset uv joint2.jpg

ahh the ATTACH tag

Re the guy that says manage attachments doesn't do anything maybe popups are blocked?

and regarding the john device... It's exactly the same thing, other than circular entirely and minus a load balancing top weight... the brunt of the work force is maintained. I could just cut an ellipse at the top and get the same result... though it'd require more force to get it around the 'corners'.