William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[i_ron]

snip... There is an effect that I can't reference at the moment. Let's say that it takes 300 watts to spin a given object up to a given speed. If you stop the object and then RE-SPIN it up to speed, it only takes 30 watts. You must re-spin it withing 1 minute? of the halt... snip
t.

The Aspden Effect (Harold Aspden)

LECTURE NO. 30

Ron

[drak]

I was really hoping someone would jump on and post a little help with the prony brake method that naudin used.

[drak]

The "translation coupler" plate... from top view you are rotating it counter clockwise in some parts of the video, but in Skinner's he goes clockwise - you also go cw in this video early on: skinner2

I was just playing around in that video. But you are right I forgot to move the weight in line with the top lever. I actually just took the plate from the previous video and flipped it over to show goldpro it starting on its own. I've made three different "translation coupler"s so far just trying stuff and will probably make more in the future.

[Danny B]

inertia and floating weights

After looking at these machines, it appears that one must build a device that wants to shake itself apart. The Milkovic oscillator qualifies. Skinner's device looks like a shaker. I built the Ramos device. It uses full circles and has it's imbalance in the walking beam that connects the discs. The "lollipop" looking weight that he added is definitely a shaker.
Ucros avoids discs and builds with half-circles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW1TSFkm25Y
Skinner and Milkovic use "float" between weights. Ramos and Ukros have fixed connections. Ramos runs loose belts on his drive motor and that may allow some float.
There is another possible configuration that allows float. Terawatt runs nested weights that appear to float. They call it an oscillator.
Oscillator on Shaft 2
They also run a magnetic coupler to drive the second shaft.
Magnetic Drive / Magnetic Torque and Speed Enhancement Device
I've seen a pic somewhere of the mags. I recall that they were transverse mounted cylindrical mags. They didn't appear to have near the "hookup" that the mags on the Hatem device have . I built that device also. It takes a lot of strength to force the wheels to "skip" a position.

Bruce Depalma had this to say; "Pendula utilizing bob weights which are rotating, swing non-sinusoidally with time
periods increased over pendula with non-rotating bobs."
Spinning Ball Experiment
DePalma also claimed that inertia was a function of space, not of mass.
DePalma, Free Energy, Anti-Gravity, Space-Drive and the Future of Science

"Bruce DePalma's primary contribution to Science is the discovery that "Inertia is not a property of Mass. Inertia is a property of Space, and Space confers its Inertia on the Masses that occupy it". He further discovered that the Inertial Field of Space can be polarized simply by rotating an object."
Free Energy | Bruce DePalma

"Inertia is a property of space" Seems pretty hard to rationalize. There is an effect that I can't reference at the moment. Let's say that it takes 300 watts to spin a given object up to a given speed. If you stop the object and then RE-SPIN it up to speed, it only takes 30 watts. You must re-spin it withing 1 minute? of the halt.
That seems to tie in with the characteristics of a pulse motor. "An object in motion tends to remain in motion." Does "space" add the energy if you pulse an object? If your bob weights move irregularly, does "space" try to smooth out the movement?
Skinner and Milkovic allow bob-weights to move at the rate that they choose in a DIFFERENT plane-orbit that the primary driven weight.
DePalma, ""Pendula utilizing bob weights which are rotating, swing
non-sinusoidally with time periods increased"
This implies that additional energy is entering the system. If space does indeed contribute to inertia of a rotating objects, one needs to fine-tune the rates of rotation.
Chas Cambell has done quite a bit of work on his device to get the various rotations in the best relationship.

At a guess, I would say that Skinner started out with concentric bob weights on his device. I'm sure that he tried a lot of speeds and combinations.
Milkovic tried LOTS of different combinations.
By looking at the painted/unpainted parts of the Ramos device, it looks like he added heavier discs as he went on. These are balanced. He increased the unbalanced weight with the lollipop device. I suspect that he would have had better results if he had lowered his speed and increased the weight of the walking beam relative to the weight of the discs.

Everybody is discovering flywheels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTLLnUOPOQk
It seems like the best results occur when the secondary weight is floating relative to the primary weight.

[Aaron]

@Drak - translation coupler placement

Dave never had the lower weight connected when he let it start on its own, only the top weight. If I set it up like Dave did, (the top weight fixed, unable to swivel, from the plate holding the weight) the top weight will start as long as the frequency of the input is at the correct speed. If it is slower then a certain speed it will start on it's own, but if it is too fast it will just stay in the same position. But that is assuming the top shaft is not allowed to swivel around the "mystery connection plate". Fixed but allowed to spin. If I make the input spin to fast, the top weight will not fall in sync and will just jump up and down. Here is a video example. (I didn't expect the weight to fall off at the end, it was being held on by friction) skinner2

Drak,

Great job putting that together!

I just want to comment on what I saw in your video.

The "translation coupler" plate... from top view you are rotating it counter clockwise in some parts of the video, but in Skinner's he goes clockwise - you also go cw in this video early on: skinner2

You have the weight in the proper place for clockwise movement.

Your lever is where the lower shaft should go - if it is moving in cw rotation, then move the input lever to the other side of the plate.

................................SHAFT



LEVER .................................................. ....NOTHING



................................WEIGHT


That is the top view of how it should be - those are the 4 points of the square. Forget about the ............'s - that is just to keep those
words out there without them defaulting to left align.

Right now, your lever is where the shaft is - move it to the left where LEVER is shown.

Then you're all set for the CW rotation.

I hope that helps.

[shylo]

Hi drak, I tried to load a slow mo clip of the upper weight and plate, but it say's invalid link?
I,m seeing the plate is always slightly tilted towards the heavy upper weight, that is where the lower shaft is connected is always the highest part of the plate. The more you accelerate the less drastic the tilt becomes.
Because of this constantly changing tilt the lower shaft has to be able to swivel.( but not rotate)
I'm not sure about the upper , but looking at your clip seems right, still trying to figure out how you made that joint.
I do believe for proper operation we will need all four, working on two right now.
artv

[drak]

You're using the linear method like Dave Q used.
During start up, does the lower weight eventually start to turn when the timing between the input lever and lower weight coordinates itself like Dave Q showed in his video?

Dave never had the lower weight connected when he let it start on its own, only the top weight. If I set it up like Dave did, (the top weight fixed, unable to swivel, from the plate holding the weight) the top weight will start as long as the frequency of the input is at the correct speed. If it is slower then a certain speed it will start on it's own, but if it is too fast it will just stay in the same position. But that is assuming the top shaft is not allowed to swivel around the "mystery connection plate". Fixed but allowed to spin. If I make the input spin to fast, the top weight will not fall in sync and will just jump up and down. Here is a video example. (I didn't expect the weight to fall off at the end, it was being held on by friction) skinner2

[goldpro]

Drak:

Great build you've done there.
Looks like that took quite a while to make.
Good idea using the plexiglass so we can see through it.

It looks like when the tip of the input lever rod is all the way over
to one side in it's oscillation, that the top weight is lined up with it all the way over on the same side.
I don't think that will produce any "whipping" action.
It seems like it's "pushing" the lower weight around.

On the translation coupler plate-maybe if you move the tip of the input lever rod into another hole farther away from the lower shaft it may work better.
Keeping the tip, weight and shaft in the 90* arrangement like skinner did
will help that motion I think.

You're using the linear method like Dave Q used.
During start up, does the lower weight eventually start to turn when the timing between the input lever and lower weight coordinates itself like Dave Q showed in his video?

Thanks for your efforts.

Tom

[bobo]

Couple is frech for torque, measure in Newton meters.

Does anyone know if this type of prony brake is accurate?

The Newman's Machine v2.0 - Towards Free Energy ?

It seems easier to build and use vs Peter's way with the leather strap and I already have all the materials to build it. Naudin says he uses this method http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/pronybrk.gif but I can't read it. I loved Peter's way of explaining how to do the straps step by step. I wish there was a step by step for the way Naudin did it. According to the site the equation he used was: Power (watts) = Couple(Nm) X 2 X Pi X RPM / 60.

What is Couple(Nm) ?

Sorry about the video quality, I'm too lazy to de-interlace. Currently set up for linear, but I have a circular set up I can swap out and am also working on an elliptical. I'll test all three. When I had circular set up it didn't feel too strong but I'd rather do the prony brake method to find out. skinner1

Anyhow, if no one knows much about that type of prony break I'll order the stuff to do it Peters way.

Thanks

Hello, as far as I now is couple french for torque, measured in Newton meters. Will make a replica as soon as my health get's better.
Bobo

[drak]

I've done it both ways but I like the scale better (Naudins Way)

Do you know what Couple(Nm) is?

Wow! Impressive build Drak. Well done.

Thank you.

Hi drak, I notice at the 9second mark all the holes in your plate.
Have you found the best locations yet?
Also it seems that about 270* of rev are free falling , the other 90* for input.
Just like pushing the grandkids on a swing.
Nice build wish I had that stuff.

Haven't found best locations yet, that plate is just something I threw together, I'm still trying to figure out if the plate is attached to the bottom shaft and not allowed to change angles or not ("swivel"), or maybe its attached to the top shaft and not allowed to swivel. Or maybe its as Aaron has showed and they both swivel. By swivel I don't mean spin, I mean does the plate stay perpendicular to one of the shafts. I'm slowly reconstructing a part of his build in blender to see how the plate moves vs the other shafts. And to watch the motion of both weights, I think it would be interesting to see, I just wish a professional was doing it. Its hard to match everything up considering the lens on the camera is kinda "fish-eyed". skinnerblender

Its still work in slow progress.

[Matthew Jones]

Does anyone know if this type of prony brake is accurate?

The Newman's Machine v2.0 - Towards Free Energy ?

It seems easier to build and use vs Peter's way with the leather strap and I already have all the materials to build it. Naudin says he uses this method http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/pronybrk.gif but I can't read it. I loved Peter's way of explaining how to do the straps step by step. I wish there was a step by step for the way Naudin did it. According to the site the equation he used was: Power (watts) = Couple(Nm) X 2 X Pi X RPM / 60.

What is Couple(Nm) ?

Sorry about the video quality, I'm too lazy to de-interlace. Currently set up for linear, but I have a circular set up I can swap out and am also working on an elliptical. I'll test all three. When I had circular set up it didn't feel too strong but I'd rather do the prony brake method to find out. skinner1

Anyhow, if no one knows much about that type of prony break I'll order the stuff to do it Peters way.

Thanks

I've done it both ways but I like the scale better (Naudins Way)

Matt

[shylo]

Nice

Hi drak, I notice at the 9second mark all the holes in your plate.
Have you found the best locations yet?
Also it seems that about 270* of rev are free falling , the other 90* for input.
Just like pushing the grandkids on a swing.
Nice build wish I had that stuff.
artv

[purelyprimitives]

Wow! Impressive build Drak. Well done.

[drak]

Does anyone know if this type of prony brake is accurate?

The Newman's Machine v2.0 - Towards Free Energy ?

It seems easier to build and use vs Peter's way with the leather strap and I already have all the materials to build it. Naudin says he uses this method http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/pronybrk.gif but I can't read it. I loved Peter's way of explaining how to do the straps step by step. I wish there was a step by step for the way Naudin did it. According to the site the equation he used was: Power (watts) = Couple(Nm) X 2 X Pi X RPM / 60.

What is Couple(Nm) ?

Sorry about the video quality, I'm too lazy to de-interlace. Currently set up for linear, but I have a circular set up I can swap out and am also working on an elliptical. I'll test all three. When I had circular set up it didn't feel too strong but I'd rather do the prony brake method to find out. skinner1

Anyhow, if no one knows much about that type of prony break I'll order the stuff to do it Peters way.

Thanks

[purelyprimitives]

Yeah, building it should be no problem. I was hoping to see some results on your mockup to use as a guide for sizing/setup. I have a 20 watt DC motor I'd like to test with this, and I think your prototype might be around the right size for that sort of input.

Do you remember what the output of the 35 watt setup was?

Way back on page 3, velacreations asked Aaron for help in building his replication.

Rather than helping, Aaron answered that he didn't want to make any claims regarding his results.

I'll give him the benefit of doubt and say its possible he just meant 'publicly' and contacted velacreations offline.

However, some general direction would have been helpful for others who may have been (or still are) in the same position.