William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[Turion]

Matt did a lot of experimenting on the shape of the spinning weight on his bouncer. Some shapes worked and some did not. There is a method to his madness and it is based on research, research, research.

Dave

[MagnaMoRo]

Well Aaron,

It's a pretty chart you drew up! But it has noting to do with impulse. Nor does it have anything to do with NEGATIVE RESISTANCE, but is only what the charts appear to show (and what you've indicated it is); a study of the time to discharge capacitors from maximum potential to minimal potential, under two different scenarios. However, it says nothing about the make-up of the circuits into which the discharges were applied or the forces (voltages) involved. The chart on the right easily could have been the discharge time when the capacitor is shorted with a screw-driver. It certainly does not imply that the electrons were "sucked out". Electrons push electrons out of the capacitor due to potential difference. You've already "theorized" that gravity is a push (and I don't argue that). So, what could possibly "suck" (pull) an electron out?

An example of an impulse trace chart for a circuit would look like this:





Now, with this chart we can tell something about the voltage (forces) over a given time.

MagnaMoRo

[Aaron]

your deception is unwanted

But it has noting to do with impulse. Nor does it have anything to do with NEGATIVE RESISTANCE, but is only what the charts appear to show (and what you've indicated it is); a study of the time to discharge capacitors from maximum potential to minimal potential, under two different scenarios. However, it says nothing about the make-up of the circuits into which the discharges were applied or the forces (voltages) involved. The chart on the right easily could have been the discharge time when the capacitor is shorted with a screw-driver.

You're welcome to remain ignorant.

Thousands of people understand these effects after all these years of experimenting with the plasma ignition methods whether it is my method or the standard one.

It is negative resistance - get over it. You are ignorant that negative resistance happens at a spark gap anyway, fluorescent light bulbs operate under negative resistance, etc...

Shorted with a screwdriver? That is truly pathetic.

You just got exposed for putting a half truth about the definition of impulse while leaving out the other part of the definition that clearly spells out SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

My chart shows non-impulse and then impulse - get over it.

First of all, capacitors do not get filled up with electrons. When I say current is sucked out, that is just common language to show a counter to current moving with resistance from a cap discharge. A higher voltage potential than that current is normally associated with is over the same gap and that is what accelerates the movement of the current with a negative resistance. You have no understanding of negative resistance effects of spark gaps or with this plasma ignition method.

Your misinformation unwelcome and is going to come to and end. Accusing me of posting a diagram that is being shorted out with a screw driver when it is showing what I said it shows is unacceptable to me and only shows the levels that you will stoop to in order to spread your half truths and other misinformation that does nothing but throw people off the right track.

[BroMikey]

You're welcome to remain ignorant.


Shorted with a screwdriver? That is truly pathetic.

You just got exposed for putting a half truth about the definition of impulse ..............................

My chart shows non-impulse and then impulse - get over it.


Your misinformation unwelcome and is going to come to an end. Accusing me of posting a diagram that is being shorted out with a screw driver when it is showing what I said it shows is unacceptable to me and only shows the levels that you will stoop to in order to spread your half truths and other misinformation that does nothing but throw people off the right track.

See now we all can see these people for what they really are.

Willingly blind and belligerent. You are right Aaron and I will always

back up the voice of reason. This hostile performance to make

up a confrontational lie against the one who is correct to undermine

the purity of logic that is deeply hated by those who have

been thoroughly captured by their own cloudy thinking.

Still it is a wonderful thing to see you get determined to express

all of the important truths relating to what we have never been

taught in a Gov/School.

It's this aggressive, threatening behavior that makes me grow

a new set of teeth and I see you are the same way. Stick to

your guns.

I see these guys coming within 2 posts but I give them the

benefit of the doubt and just let them "open mouth and

insert foot"

Yes now back to the impulse studies you have kindly

set out on the table, this stuff is right and is worth

going after. Tell me more.

The low blow with the screw driver comment? Yeah like

John Bedini's video where he shorts out the wire so the

other type of energy can be viewed? He is mocking

John Bedini.

I see these things when they crawl up.

[Aaron]

Importance of short duration impulse

This is off topic here, but to make it more complete - you have to study what a capacitor is - http://ericpdollard.com/wp-content/u...ic-dollard.pdf

The common understanding is incorrect.

The electrons for the current come from the copper wire itself and not the capacitor.

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

MagnaMoRo - what I find insincere about your posts about the subject of impulses is that despite the fact that I posted not only conventional definitions that constantly point out the short/fast duration essence to impulse and definite it quite clearly in how it applies to these systems, you continue to push a definition of impulse that is a conventional definition of impulse, but has nothing to do with the Skinner machine or anything else here.

And you claim that the right side of the chart I show is not an impulse? Do you realize you are only demonstrating that you have no idea what an impulse is?

The entire point is that on "overunity" devices, besides energy gains, is that there are serious opportunity for power gains, which can be exploited in various ways. How do you increase power for the same amount of energy?

You cause the potential available to be dissipated in as short of a period of time as possible, which is an IMPULSE. It is an impulse with a short period of time that gives an increase in power. Trying to dispute this by bringing up one selective definition that does not describe a short time period and in the context of these kind of machines is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You are unable to acknowledge that I have clearly spelled out that IMPULSE in the context I am using it is specifically a short duration impulse for the purpose of having power gains.

The uninformed and conventionally thinking person believes that energy dissipated at low power or high power is the same since they're the same energy but that is false. TIME compression is all important and with time compressed discharges, MORE is accomplished than can be accomplished with the same energy at low power (over longer time). It is a fact that the conventionally minded believers can't accept but it's true.

The first image is a CDI discharge and the second image is my plasma method - both start with the SAME joules of potential energy in the capacitor but they're obviously not the same even though it is the same energy.




The 2nd one accomplishes WAY more than the first one even though it is the same energy. Discharging the cap under the negative resistance method accelerates the discharge so we have a very small time component, a true IMPULSE. This is a ridiculously high power gain so we do accomplish more with higher power regardless of what the conventionally minded believers want to think.

The first one IS an impulse and can be defined by the definitions and believes you provided here, but it is absent the most important thing about the impulse, which is to have the smallest time component as possible to have as much power as possible for that moment.

The reason why high power short time IMPULSES do accomplish more is because with a slower dissipation of energy (over a longer period of time), there is more time for nature to bring that work back to equilibrium between each cycle. But if we have a higher power impulse, less equilibrium is achieved between each cycle and that means we are more effective at maintaining our dipole or potential difference in the system.

If someone sits around and wants to accomplish something and they put in 1 hour per week for 10 weeks, week to week, most of that momentum has been equalized and it takes more to get it going each time. But if someone puts in 2 hours per week for 5 weeks, results will come quicker. If someone puts in 5 hours per week for 2 weeks, even more results will come happen because it was cranked up higher and faster and it will take even longer for nature to bring it to equilibrium.

If someone wants to build a network marketing business for example and they put in an hour per week for 52 weeks, they will get only so much done. But if someone puts in 10 hours per week for 5.2 weeks, they will build a much larger organization because there is less time for everything to die down between each moment of effort. That is why "all out massive action" (short time impulse) will always outperform those who put in less time over a longer period of time.

I'm only bringing that up because these are natural laws that apply to all situations whether they are energy machines, organic systems (business building), etc... it doesn't matter. Compressing energy in time is the entire point and any definition of impulse that does not embody that fact is a definition that has virtually no significant relevance to any system that is supposed to be overunity.

[MagnaMoRo]

...

...

First and foremost I have not accused YOU of anything. I merely meant that your chart itself, in looking at it, only shows that one cap has discharged more quickly, but does not explain why or what is happening or the effects of doing so. Anyone can discharge a cap slowly (into some kind of circuit), or quickly (with a screw-driver), and achieve similar graph results. True? So, don't misconstrue it as an attack on you.

I don't really want to talk about fast cap discharges here (that is for another topic). I do understand your various "impulse" meanings. But, since this topic is about the Skinner machine, I only think it fair that if we are going to talk about impulses (quick burst of energy) then we also need to discuss the results or effects of doing so, or whether this would be beneficial or not.

The sudden release of pressure into an object does not necessarily have the best result. I believe that if quick impulses are used on the massive weights of the skinner device to create a whipping ovular effect, this would have an undesirable vibrational effect on the machine vs. the same amount of energy being smoothly placed into the weights over a full circular rotation.

Is there any basis for my belief?

I have done studies of sudden vs. slowly dispersed impulses of energy. (See the video below.) But, in brief explanation; Car A can accelerate car B two different ways. Car A can push car B up to 60mph slowly, OR, Car A can accelerate up to 60mph and slam into the back of Car B. Which will have the more beneficial energy release?

Here is one of my study examples:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jswmcdB5M0A[/VIDEO]

In the video, all three levels have identical thrusters that release the the same amount of energy over the same period of time. However, the results are different based solely upon the dispersion!

Respectfully,
MagnaMoRo

[Danny B]

Nash and gravity

"He also said Nash claimed his replacement would help further explain quantum gravity.

Einstein's theory of relativity, published in the early 20th century, explains that what we perceive as gravity arises from the curvature of space and time.

Read more: John Forbes Nash Jr said he could replace Einstein theory DAYS before death | Daily Mail Online

[Uncle Charlie]

I have done studies of sudden vs. slowly dispersed impulses of energy. (See the video below.) But, in brief explanation; Car A can accelerate car B two different ways. Car A can push car B up to 60mph slowly, OR, Car A can accelerate up to 60mph and slam into the back of Car B. Which will have the more beneficial energy release?

Hmmm. You may have made Aaron's point for him. It all depends on what you deem as beneficial. If you slam into a car at 60 mph you end up releasing all of the energy in a very brief span of time. This, of course, has undesirable (to most) effects to car B but if your goal is to release a lot of energy then it will certainly have that effect. If, however, you slowly push car B up to 60 mph then you take that same energy and spread it out along the roadway in the form of heat and friction (nature absorbing and regulating the energy transfer). The better of the two methods all depends on what you hope to accomplish as an end result.

I am not as articulate as most of you guys but after reading here for years I know that Aaron has always taught ideas and concepts as truthfully as he understands them. Nobody has all of the answers or we would not need a forum like this to share what we do know.

Have a great day everyone!
Charlie

[MagnaMoRo]

Hmmm. You may have made Aaron's point for him. It all depends on what you deem as beneficial. If you slam into a car at 60 mph you end up releasing all of the energy in a very brief span of time. This, of course, has undesirable (to most) effects to car B but if your goal is to release a lot of energy then it will certainly have that effect. If, however, you slowly push car B up to 60 mph then you take that same energy and spread it out along the roadway in the form of heat and friction (nature absorbing and regulating the energy transfer). The better of the two methods all depends on what you hope to accomplish as an end result.

I am not as articulate as most of you guys but after reading here for years I know that Aaron has always taught ideas and concepts as truthfully as he understands them. Nobody has all of the answers or we would not need a forum like this to share what we do know.

Have a great day everyone!
Charlie

Hi Carlie,

It sounds like you are as happy to have Aaron's forum as I am. It's a great place to SHARE ideas and thoughts. I'm sure this is why Aaron made this forum in the first place. I'm just enjoying listening to AND bringing in thought provoking, interesting material, and SHARING opinions.

As we see and think about things we share, surely all of us, You, Me, Aaron, and everyone else have a little room for growth in the areas of mental thinking ability and articulation. For what man knows it all?

Moving on,

I haven't built the machine, yet. If I do, it wont be full scale. But, I do have enough interest to share my observations and thoughts.

I'm not sure how you think I made Arron's point for him.
In my example with car (A) & (B):
Car (A) will receive the exact same amount of energy in both scenarios, just over different amounts of impulse time.
However, the results will be different.
As the energy transfer impulse time is decreased more and more, then more and more energy is moved from use for propulsion of car (A) over to the destruction of both car (A) and car (B). Thus there is energy lost as heat, sound and vibration during the impulse moment that could have been used for propulsion.

On a side note, a high energy fast discharge from a capacitor can manifest itself as bright light (Aaron's cap discharge pictures testifies to this), destruction of metal leads (on the cap and/or other contact points), sound, heat, RF interference, etc... Depending upon what you are trying to do, of course, these manifestations could be considered undesirable, destructive or wasteful.

These thoughts considered, how then will the input arm, massive weights, drive mechanism, output mechanism, etc... react to quick burst impulses?
Where is the advantage?
I think there would be undesirable consequences.

Just giving food for thought in considering how the Skinner machine is to be regarded strictly and without question as an elliptical impulse machine.

It may actually have worked that way, but without the actual machine being available for examination, and existing pictures somehow being of just sufficient obscurity to cause a shadow of doubt (in the minds of some) over the actual mechanics causing motion within the machine; well then, every avenue of reason is still open to exploration.


MagnaMoRo

[soundiceuk]

The reason not many replicators have successfully replicated mechanical torque amplifiers is because they have not built replications with mass substantial to overcome mechanical frictional losses.

I see that the gravitational potential has to be collected quickly by impulse of larger weights.

Of course the stumbling block for replicators is affording the mechanism to support this large capture of impulse of gravitational energy.

Look at the size of the replications and look at the size of Skinners device.

We simply don't have that budget or are not risking the budget for anything near a full size replication.

Steel is not cheap!

[soundiceuk]

To build a snowball takes little energy. To start it rolling down a hill takes little energy.

The snowball in the right surroundings has the capability to grow using gravitational potential and smash a small village down.

There is infinite energy in gravitational potential if the mechanism can support the correct mass to capture it.

Of course devices can be scaled up and staged to suit whatever energy requirements.

[Aaron]

impulse advantage

These thoughts considered, how then will the input arm, massive weights, drive mechanism, output mechanism, etc... react to quick burst impulses?
Where is the advantage?
I think there would be undesirable consequences.

I did give my 2 cents on this a couple times. The lower weights rotation around the lower shaft is the key to the smooth transition. First of all, the lower weight always falls to the inside of the incline and second of all, it's own momentum around the lower shaft carries it to one end and then back as it swings around the end point towards the other direction.

The only undesirable consequences would be if the lower weight did not swing around the shaft and if the lower shaft did not rotate. If they did not, then kicking the it back in the other direction would be bucking against it's momentum which is fairly fixed in one direction. That would be a serious bucking force that would tear the machine apart but that Skinner's mechanism avoids this so is not an issue.

The input lever kicks the lower shaft back in the other direction. The Impulse is the sudden transition of the momentum of the object AND the kick from the input lever in one smooth transition because of the ellipse. There is curvature at the end. Even if it is linear, the weight spinning around the lower shaft moves in the opposite direction by itself without having to buck it in that direction, which would cause a lot of counter resistance. It doesn't take much for the lower weight to overcome the travel to a greater height at the narrow end of the ellipse (at center) and at that point over the top, gravitational potential energy is then able to come into the system and push it down towards the other end of the ellipse.

The momentum of the lower weight and the input lever kick is greater not only in power but in energy than the loss against the gravitational force of it moving towards the narrow part of the ellipse. I know this to be an experimental fact because after stopping input on an elliptical path, the lower shaft can make extra rotations without any input. That means there is obviously more than is necessary to overcome the work needed to go against gravity. Include the input kick and we have quite a bit more on each cycle.

So when it goes over the top, we not only have the momentum of the lower weight kicked up a bit from the input lever, we have added gravitational potential that comes into the system and pushes on the weight.

You might wonder where is the advantage here? I think it is obvious and it would be my question how can anyone not see an advantage here?

The movement of the weight appears to be the fastest at the end points of transition in its direction and is assisted in speeding up with the input lever kick plus its own mechanism spinning around the lower shaft. That also means that at those end points, there is more speed and distance of the lower weight per unit of time than anywhere else on the entire orbit. That means there is a power increase there that happens twice per rotation because of the Impulse at those two end points.

If you want to remove the impulse, reduce the power and have a steady speed for the lower weight on its entire journey of 1 full rotation, then put it in a circular orbit - the very thing that defeats the entire point that Skinner worked to accomplish.

[Aaron]

build bigger

The reason not many replicators have successfully replicated mechanical torque amplifiers is because they have not built replications with mass substantial to overcome mechanical frictional losses.

That is a very important concept.

The larger the machine, the lower the percentage the frictional losses become compared to the total.

[Aaron]

the goal is "overunity" - ellipse + impulse

Depending upon what you are trying to do, of course, these manifestations could be considered undesirable, destructive or wasteful.

That's right - depending on what we want to do.

When we're talking about a non-equilibrium energy machine that outputs mechanical work, the goal is to increase the power of our available resources, which is done with impulses. We will have a speed and torque increase and if it is an open system open to free external source potential (gravity), then we not only get a power increase from the input lever at the right time and the lower weight's mechanism to self propel itself in the other direction, but we get a real energy gain or increase in work compared to our input.

A circular mechanism and no impulses brings the machine into equilibrium and in that case, we might as well direct drive every machine direct from wall power because that is where there is no advantage.

[h2ocommuter]

I applaud all the input to this discussion, lively, cogenic and fun to read. I however must incorporate my efforts into what I know and understand as mechanically advantageous in my replications. However the conversation goes in each of our labs it is curious to me how many theories come into play. "Truely Amazing".

So to do... I see the ability of overcoming the disparaging failure of ou for the skinner device is managing the Levers, fulcrums, and slope of angle for the gravity to be a usable element in the machine. However compelling the reasoning for elliptical and linear movement being laid out my primary focus is only on the lower 2/3 of the machine.

I am well aware of the friction elements: Bearings, alignment to vertical, and drive belts or gearboxes. My replications show me how important these factors really are.
The vertical axis Or degree of slope is paramount!

I won't go into bearing alignment because IF you don't get this component you are LOST to any mechanical build anyways.

I have fixed my perspective on the gravity component, I would contend this: Any amount of weight is doable given the Slope is correct and all load bearing are adequate.

I do not think about the explanation of why OU or perpetual motion does not work because I see the universe by itself operating together as individual self cohesive units that contain millions of components Or only a couple that too are cogenetic and cohesive, being simple or complicated work just fine. Nature itself is like this. so I look at this machine as a simple adaptation of a natural occurrence.

A slope is the most natural element of our everyday life as anything..... liquid will flow down "any" slope depending on the viscosity in relation which is related to time. I see bearings and fulcrums as this viscosity element.

I just ordered the correct bearings and fulcrum shafts for one unit. If I like what I ordered and my figures are correct I will make other inroads.

Good luck.
Have a great day.