William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

[Dave Q]

William F. Skinner - 1939 Gravity Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have posted another video on youtube demonstrating the instant acceleration of the weight as soon as it self times with the rocking motion of its drive.
This is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCOctgVIR6Q&feature=youtu.be

Please excuse my unscripted and unedited presentation.
The principle is probably easier to see than to describe

[h2ocommuter]

5 Lever assembly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




I'm tired


have a great day.
Zane

[purelyprimitives]

PS. I would love to play tenis with you all day, but I have other things to do, this is not an opt out, this is just so you know that I know what you are trying to do, and I think most others here too. I have my family here this weekend and next week I am away for work. Lets see what develops while I'm away, I will look in on my phone.

Gee, and here it was me thinking I was ending the conversation by saying lets agree to disagree.

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

Charlie

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Yes, but remember that all 4 rotating lower weights would be affected together and maintain a systemic balance even though the balance of the individual ones are changing.

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

Charlie

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

regards

Mike

PS. I would love to play tenis with you all day, but I have other things to do, this is not an opt out, this is just so you know that I know what you are trying to do, and I think most others here too. I have my family here this weekend and next week I am away for work. Lets see what develops while I'm away, I will look in on my phone.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

OK, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one...

Charlie

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

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

regards

Mike

[purelyprimitives]

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

Yes, but remember that all 4 rotating lower weights would be affected together and maintain a systemic balance even though the balance of the individual ones are changing.

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

Charlie

[Michael John Nunnerley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember centripetal and centrifugal forces only exist together.

If this is true, then it reminds me of the torque converter invented by George Constantinesco:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021104140156/http://fluid.power.net/fpn/const/const005.html

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

Its interesting that according to the history of his device, General Motors bought up the patent and immediately shelved it. Sound familiar?

yes sounds very familiar The part about GM.

Regards

Mike

[purelyprimitives]

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

OK, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one...

Charlie

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I would like all to have another look at the first enlarged photo, of the only photo we have, which thanks to Luc has been posted.

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

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

regards

Mike

[purelyprimitives]

I apologize. Perhaps its an artifact of my computer screen but it looks taller than its width.

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

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

Does this make more sense now?

Charlie

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

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

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

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

If this is true, then it reminds me of the torque converter invented by George Constantinesco:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021104140156/http://fluid.power.net/fpn/const/const005.html

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

Its interesting that according to the history of his device, General Motors bought up the patent and immediately shelved it. Sound familiar?

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I apologize. Perhaps its an artifact of my computer screen but it looks taller than its width.

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

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

Does this make more sense now?

Charlie

Ok, apology accepted.

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

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

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

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

regards

Mike

[gotoluc]

Mike,
Luc: maybe if you move the top of your lower weight shaft pillow block bearing farther away from the square tubing it will work better. that will lean the weight over farther giving more of an incline for the bottom weight to swing around on. In other words put a spacer block between the bearing and the tubing and connect them back together with 8" long bolts or so.
I don't know what Aaron means when he says it's not at the correct right angle. the angle looks ok to me...it already is at 90*...just not out far enough. ??

Tom

Hi Tom,

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

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

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

Luc

[purelyprimitives]

Again it is not an ellipse in that reference drawing, also the bottom of the bottomshaft is not really an ellipse, an ellipse is about as close as we can get as an explination, in reality it is 3 dimentional, it is forever changing in 3 planes. The top of that bottom weight is forever wanting to fall over, that is why it is so high (long).

Explain better please, as I do not know what you are talking about!

I apologize. Perhaps its an artifact of my computer screen but it looks taller than its width.

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

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

Does this make more sense now?

Charlie

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Seems someone has looked up what a flywheel is and it's properties, maybe looking up also counter weights on cams might be a good idea too

Does anyone know which is applicable to this system of Skinner? maybe neither?

regards

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I've been an engineer for over 30 years.

Your drawing (I assume) depicts a centrally fixed tilting ellipse with a ball rolling around it. The ellipse tilts and the ball 'rolls downhill' seeking the lowest point. As the ellipse is continually tilted in a circle, the ball follows the ever changing angle of the ramp. Is that correct?

It is not an ellipse, it is a circle which is a wheel, which is not turning, only a circumference change of reference to the center axis.

But in your drawing, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the ellipse does not rotate but only tilts. If so, where in Mr. Skinner's machine is this same fixed tilting plate? One that is not rotating but only tilts.

Again it is not an ellipse in that reference drawing, also the bottom of the bottomshaft is not really an ellipse, an ellipse is about as close as we can get as an explination, in reality it is 3 dimentional, it is forever changing in 3 planes. The top of that bottom weight is forever wanting to fall over, that is why it is so high (long).

From what I see, the weights are rotating around a rotating axle which is not the same frame of reference as your drawing. Do you agree?

Explain better please, as I do not know what you are talking about!

Charlie

PS I look forward to any video from anyone showing the weights rising and falling. Should be simple right?

Regards

Mike