Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 509689
  • *Total Topics: 15191
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 5
  • *Total: 5

Author Topic: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%  (Read 303253 times)

Offline shylo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 507
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #435 on: August 13, 2014, 01:03:24 AM »
The input is only required for 90* of rotation , the other 270 feeds back ,the most feed back is at 135.
I think that is why there are four. While one is drawing power the other three are adding. They are all at 90*  separation.
Detours, When I work on something and begin to get frustrated I will switch to a different exp. It lets me reflect. Maybe that's stupid?
artv

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #435 on: August 13, 2014, 01:03:24 AM »

Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #436 on: August 13, 2014, 04:55:27 PM »
Why dont you show a video of that.


Offline Dev

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #437 on: August 14, 2014, 07:06:14 PM »
Hi everybody, I'm a newbie on the forum but not to OU in general.  Before I babble about Skinner I just want to say thanks to everyone who is posting their work on this device. I've been following this thread with interest and I hope people are still working on it because it seems clear the machine is not fully understood yet. 

It may well be a lathe-powered gang of flywheels.  But maybe not, and the inconvenient truth of the matter is that we won't know until someone builds a really good replica, preferably at full scale.  I've done the Lego model thing, to help me understand the movement and linkages.  When I feel like I also have a solid grasp of the forces involved, I'll start on something like a complete 1/5 scale model. 

For the record:  I thought for a long time that there was a crossbar/camshaft/agitator thingy swinging the tops of the upper shafts in ellipses.  I now know that the crossbar is an illusion created by the motion of four arms swinging the tops of the upper shafts in circles.  Like many optical illusions, once you 'unsee' the crossbar it becomes obvious there isn't one.  There are beams from center to the outer frame, but they don't move.  The youtube versions of the video will never resolve the circle/ellipse debate, the vid quality is just too low.  It's crucial to download the vid and play it on your local machine with a good player like VLC or Gom Player to get the most out of the lousy resolution.  That's what changed my mind about ellipses vs circles.

While I'm on the subject of the upper shafts, here is a point of interest:  The arms that swing the upper shafts are much longer than necessary, extending well beyond the shaft.  I suspect they were either mounting points for a lighter set of weights, or the extra steel *is* the lighter set of weights.  There may be some other purpose for that extra metal but the one firm conclusion that can be made is, they are there on purpose -  there's nothing sloppy about Skinner's construction of his device.  He didn't just leave some pieces untrimmed.

In my opinion we need to view this machine as a stack of 3 gyroscopes, and sort out the forces on that basis.  The axis of the top gyro is the upper shaft, with a set degree of precession.  Second gyro is the smaller weight that Skinner swings by hand to show it's degree of freedom, and third is the heaviest weight  mounted at the bottom of the lower shaft.  The precession angles of the lower gyros change until they are up to speed, so a static analysis is of limited use.

For example, at full operating speed the shorter pipe weights rise until they approach 180 deg from their static position.  That's why there's a downward bend on their mounting arms - the bend ensures that the weights don't strike the horizontal frame member above them when they are at their uppermost orbit.  (they could probably still strike the frame if too much power is applied)

So there is a very dynamic, transitional stage of operation when Skinner's device is spooling up.  Even in my lego model it takes time to settle into a groove, easily half a minute or more.  People testing their devices will need to allow settling time after they make a change like applying a load - for big machines it could easily be a couple minutes or more before any resonant condition is re-established.

The counter-intuitive nature of gyroscopes in general, combined with the complexity of their relationships in the Skinner machine, makes this thing a brute to figure out.  I don't think we'll crack it until we nail down the gyro interactions.

@ Gotoluc, your build and vids are great, thanks for sharing.  I just wanted to mention the possibility that your concrete weights may be too heavy.  If we assume there is an amplification process at work in the system, then it's possible to overwhelm the driving signal with too much feedback force.

I'm not sure yet how to establish correct masses but I think a good starting point might be to use Arto's dimensions and assume Skinner used Schedule 40 pipe in his device.  From there we can do a guesstimate calculation of the masses involved, based on a typical density for steel.

I nominate armcortex to do that calc and post it here, so he can make his first useful contribution to this thread.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #437 on: August 14, 2014, 07:06:14 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #438 on: August 14, 2014, 08:46:20 PM »
Shylo, I guess everything you say is not serious, like fishing stories.

non-useless people like Webby1 are so rare these days.

Dev: You have got some nerve calling me out like that, the purelyprimitives Skinner-esque redesign derivative I posted is actually better suited to harvest gravity than Skinner's, take that as useless, your useless.

Skinner device was useless, a fraud. Prove me otherwise. The machine was not even patented, how can anybody believe with reasonable doubt claims of 1200%... I know, blame it on a conspiracy.

You are not in a position to call others useless, you are a newbie. Take a backseat and let me and Webby1 do the explaining, and I_ron, your only job is to listen.


Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3059
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #439 on: August 14, 2014, 09:40:41 PM »
Hi Dev,

at first I thought this device was easy to understand.  I even believed someone well known from another Forum to have real results.
I found none to be true.  There's so many unknowns that I now think a replication is not possible.

I'll keep an eye on the topic in hopes to see your replication attempt and wish you success.

Kind regards

Luc

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #439 on: August 14, 2014, 09:40:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #440 on: August 14, 2014, 10:05:45 PM »
Did anybody notice the valy videos? Whats with the plethora of devices, is this guy addicted to gravity  ? 3 different OU machines... LOL...

300w (1/2hp)  to 10kw. I have a hard time believing that, I really do . That would make it, the most COP ever for gravity device.

I am gonna try to sim the valy device  in algodoo. I think it can be done, hope my comp can handle that.

Vertical has advantage that its simmable, I know its ridiculous right..simmable OU, would that even be valid or unvalid no matter the result.

Gotoluc, see my videos. Its not hollywod capture but basicly, a bizarre machine, where mass is moved by totally disconnected pendulums wich keep their momentum,
drive by only CF ''fictitious'' force.

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3059
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #441 on: August 14, 2014, 10:35:17 PM »
Gotoluc, see my videos. Its not hollywod capture but basicly, a bizarre machine, where mass is moved by totally disconnected pendulums wich keep their momentum,
drive by only CF ''fictitious'' force.

I'll look at them but can you post a link

Luc

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #441 on: August 14, 2014, 10:35:17 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #442 on: August 14, 2014, 11:09:11 PM »
http://www.overunity.com/14817/purelyprimitives-pendulum-power/#.U-0k_vldV8F

Im watching Valy now, guy seems to be making a company


Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #443 on: August 15, 2014, 08:48:10 PM »
thx luc for backing me up. ;D

this kid must be so butthurt right now. ;D

as if he just got out of missouri prison, ferguson county. ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #443 on: August 15, 2014, 08:48:10 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Dev

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #444 on: August 16, 2014, 03:36:39 PM »
So, about those pipe masses: I'd forgotten that Arto included figures for weight in his drawing.  I don't have the original post location for that, but d3x0r reposted the Version 4 drawing here:  http://www.overunity.com/14655/1939-gravity-power-multiply-power-by-1200/390/#.U-7agfldVsI

Arto calculated for solid steel masses but I'm inclined to think the cylinders are pipe.  The mounting arms don't look beefy enough to me, to support solid steel cylinders.  More importantly, the way the cylinders are mounted suggests they're hollow.  There's a wide piece of flatbar across the bottom of the smaller weights, with a nut in the center.  If the weight were solid there would be no need for that flatbar strap on the bottom.

I'm sure he didn't bore the length of those big cylinders, although he obviously had a lathe that could have done it.  The telling detail on the big weights is the oversized cap plates that would not need to be there if the cylinders were solid.  And that's my case for hollow cylinders.  All of them do appear to have been turned on the lathe, judging by the distinct areas of color variation along their length.  Seems pointless to do that for dimensional reasons so I figure that's how he achieved uniform weights all around.

Judging pipe size relative to Skinner's hand, I think the lower cylinders are 4" diameter, and taking that dimension with calipers on my screen I then get 6" dia. for the upper cylinders.  Lengths are 8" each for upper cyls, 30" each for lower cyls.  To estimate weight I'm assuming both sizes of pipe are Schedule 40 because it is an extremely common grade, making it relatively cheap and readily available.

Found a handy table that gives nominal weight per foot for steel pipe so I don't even have to get my pi on.  http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ansi-steel-pipes-d_305.html  Based on the table the weights are:  Upper cylinders 6.47 kg (14.23 lbs) each; lower cylinders 12.26 kg (26.97 lbs) each.

The difference in size and weight between upper and lower masses is really interesting.  It would have been simpler and easier to build with one pipe size or another. Why are the lower weights so long, and the uppers so much shorter?  And is it coincidence that the lower masses are double the weight of the uppers?  ...things that make me go, 'hmmm'.

@armcortex, I don't get butthurt - the key is to just relax.  I'm delighted to hear that you've decided Skinner was a fraud, because now there's no reason for you to follow this thread and continue spamming it with off topic posts and sphincterous bullying comments to your peers.  You can move on to greener pastures, and I'll stay here and and try to figure out for myself if Skinner was running a con, or an OU device.  Win:win.

Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #445 on: August 16, 2014, 04:30:00 PM »
Fine, discuss your meager theories. But there will always be a bit of  spamming by me in this thread, I will reduce a bit.

You are clearly uncertain, lost and seeking help. Why dont you just admit that you dont know how it works and that you wont built it.





Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #445 on: August 16, 2014, 04:30:00 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #446 on: August 16, 2014, 05:19:02 PM »
So, about those pipe masses: I'd forgotten that Arto included figures for weight in his drawing.  I don't have the original post location for that, but d3x0r reposted the Version 4 drawing here:  http://www.overunity.com/14655/1939-gravity-power-multiply-power-by-1200/390/#.U-7agfldVsI

Arto calculated for solid steel masses but I'm inclined to think the cylinders are pipe.  The mounting arms don't look beefy enough to me, to support solid steel cylinders.  More importantly, the way the cylinders are mounted suggests they're hollow.  There's a wide piece of flatbar across the bottom of the smaller weights, with a nut in the center.  If the weight were solid there would be no need for that flatbar strap on the bottom.

I'm sure he didn't bore the length of those big cylinders, although he obviously had a lathe that could have done it.  The telling detail on the big weights is the oversized cap plates that would not need to be there if the cylinders were solid.  And that's my case for hollow cylinders.  All of them do appear to have been turned on the lathe, judging by the distinct areas of color variation along their length.  Seems pointless to do that for dimensional reasons so I figure that's how he achieved uniform weights all around.

Judging pipe size relative to Skinner's hand, I think the lower cylinders are 4" diameter, and taking that dimension with calipers on my screen I then get 6" dia. for the upper cylinders.  Lengths are 8" each for upper cyls, 30" each for lower cyls.  To estimate weight I'm assuming both sizes of pipe are Schedule 40 because it is an extremely common grade, making it relatively cheap and readily available.

Found a handy table that gives nominal weight per foot for steel pipe so I don't even have to get my pi on.  http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ansi-steel-pipes-d_305.html  Based on the table the weights are:  Upper cylinders 6.47 kg (14.23 lbs) each; lower cylinders 12.26 kg (26.97 lbs) each.

The difference in size and weight between upper and lower masses is really interesting.  It would have been simpler and easier to build with one pipe size or another. Why are the lower weights so long, and the uppers so much shorter?  And is it coincidence that the lower masses are double the weight of the uppers?  ...things that make me go, 'hmmm'.

@armcortex, I don't get butthurt - the key is to just relax.  I'm delighted to hear that you've decided Skinner was a fraud, because now there's no reason for you to follow this thread and continue spamming it with off topic posts and sphincterous bullying comments to your peers.  You can move on to greener pastures, and I'll stay here and and try to figure out for myself if Skinner was running a con, or an OU device.  Win:win.
I concur that it's probably sections of pipe... but I would think more like street plumbing, and in 1939, the wall would have been thicker than what's made today... hard to tell.
I found when I put a load on my aparatus, that the vertical drive axle bent with the weight, so the reinfocing guy-wire thing helps keep that from flexing.  I would think it's considerably more weight than 26 pounds... I mean the top weight looks like it's on 1/2" maybe 3/4" iron and at least 3" wide... I dunno maybe they're bent so they don't hit the top; always sorta considered they were flexed by the weight on the top... 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_Pipe_Size says
"In March 1927, the American Standards Association authorized a committee to standardize the dimensions of wrought steel and wrought iron pipe and tubing. At that time only a small selection of wall thicknesses were in use: standard weight (STD), extra-strong (XS), and double extra-strong (XXS), based on the iron pipe size (IPS)"
"Also, in 1939, it was hoped that the designations of STD, XS, and XXS would be phased out by schedule numbers, however those original terms are still in common use today"
so the materials available up to that point were

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pipe_size "the IPS system was primarily used in the US and the United Kingdom. In the 1920s, the Copper Tube Size (CTS) standard was combined with the IPS standard." (CTS)  "But the schedules were limited to Standard Wall (STD), Extra Strong, (XS) and Double Extra Strong (XXS). STD is identical to Schedule 40 for NPS 1/8 to NPS 10, inclusive, and indicates .375" wall thickness for NPS 12 and larger. XS is identical to SCH 80 for NPS 1/8 to NPS 8, inclusive, and indicates .500" wall thickness for NPS 8 and larger. Different definitions exist for XXS, but it is generally thicker than schedule 160 "

so I was thinking something along the line of 1/2" thickness...

@armcortex
I think you're right, a gravity wheel is likely to be a better gravity engine... have been unable to get any math for this skinner/john device idea... if the bearing is frictionless... it definatly has merit since the fall length is much greater than the rise, therefore a smaller input can result in greater acceleration in a torque direction.. but having tried various methods to make it drive itself, it ends up 'what goes down, must go up first' and that's all there is... therefore it's just a ginormous flywheel for a lathe.  On energetic forum I left a long post (http://www.energeticforum.com/261132-post445.html)  about the history of lathes and what could be bought, (and what's in museums and with collectors now) and any flywheel for a metal working treadle lathe was WAY less mass, and was still sufficient to do the job.

Although I do wish I could decode Andrei Ermola's(err maybe he's Ermola Andrei) design. http://www.overunity.com/14746/ermola-andrei  which is true potential->kinetic translation

Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #447 on: August 16, 2014, 06:41:18 PM »
Dexor, see my postrs on pendulum power

I put many new mechanism.

Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #448 on: August 23, 2014, 01:46:46 AM »
Noonespecial, I_ron

O great masters

Me and Webby have reached near final illumination, we are grateful to you immensely.

We will put our minds to the benefit of you, have your mortgage paid, everything.

Webby does not deserve to be punished because of me.






Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3059
Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #449 on: August 26, 2014, 10:06:00 PM »
Hope you're not wrong and wish you success.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

 

OneLink