There are already some replication attempts on the 1939 Gravity Power Machine by William F. Skinner. Beside my own, Eltimple, Shylo and a couple others have been posting their replication attempts here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17195-william-f-skinner-1939-gravity-power.html
Here is Eltimple’s mini replication attempt:
Here are some various comments I made about this Skinner Machine:
Sun, Earth, Moon
The relationship of the upper weight to the lower weight shaft is like the MOON and EARTH. The Earth rotates on its own axis while the Moon does not. However, as the Earth moves through space once around its axis of rotation around the SUN (lever), the moon has made one rotation. In a year is a day and the Earth goes around the Sun one time per day, the Moon has spun 360 degrees in that one day while all the time showing it’s same side to the Earth.
If you took a string with a weight on the end, held it out and turned in a circle, the string would stretch out and the weight would go out and be held by the string. As you turned around in circles on your own axis, the same side of the weight is facing you so to you it is not rotatig on its own axis, however, with each one rotation you make on your own axis, the weight (moon) has indeed revolved 360 degrees in space.
I don’t want to get too much into all of that right now, but something to think about. The whole Skinner mechanism is like the Sun, Earth and Moon where it takes one day for the Earth to revolve around the Sun and the Moon always stays in the same position relative to the Earth and Sun like the 3 points of a right angle triangle and the hypotenuse is from the Sun to Moon and the right angle is at the Earth..
Not a perfect analogy but the principles are all there.
Here is a paper by Nikola Tesla on this concept: The Moon’s Rotation by Nikola Tesla (pdf)
SOME COMMENTS ON THE SOURCE OF THE PRIMARY FORCE
The first force in the Skinner machine is the electric motor, which is mechanical work to turn pulleys by belts to move the mechanism that rotates the input lever in an elliptical motion. The whole machine has multiple levels of leveraging leverage so to speak.
That motor doesn’t need to supply very much work to turn the top of the lever around in an elliptical way because the pivot is way down at the bottom of that level – with let’s say 90% of the length of the lever above the pivot, very little is needed because of the mechanical advantage of the length of the lever.
“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” – Archimedes quotes (Mathematician and inventor of ancient Greece, 280-211bc)
That is probably one of a hundred variations of that quote but that’s the point.
The bottom of that “input lever” connected to the translation coupler with coupler freely spinning around it serves as the center axis of rotation for BOTH the upper weight fixed to that coupler plate and the upper part of the lower shaft connected the the coupler plate, which also spins freely from the coupler plate. They both rotate in perfect circles around the bottom of the input lever. But they of course go in an elliptical orbit because that center of axis (bottom part of input lever) for both the upper weight upper part of the lower shaft is moving in the same ellipse as the upper part of the input lever, but just inverse but in the same direction of rotation.
The force imparted by the bottom of the lever to move that part of the translation coupler causes a reaction in the upper weight to whip around in the same direction that the input lever is going – like I showed in the graph paper demo (coupler plate demo – not the upper input mechanism demo). That reaction is possible because of the specific placement of the input lever on the plate in relation to the upper weight placement and lower shaft placement on the plate as well. If the upper weight was on the other side or if the lever was turned in the opposite direction, you lose the effect and try to run the machine backwards.
So the force that gets the upper weight to swing around is directly from the input lever. Once it gets going, it obviously has momentum and when up to speed, the input lever only has to make up for the loss on each rotation, which is almost nothing with no load and still only a small percentage under load.
As the upper weight moves together with the small input of the lever just to maintain that momentum, the lower shaft’s upper part follows it and the center of gravity for the lower weight is constantly moved so it has to constantly fall to the new center of gravity, which it can’t catch up to.
Now look at the whole vertical drive as one unit. The lower shaft and weight are held slightly off center by being held in the translation coupler and that translation coupler is held in place by being connected to the bottom of the input lever. If the input lever is perfectly vertical, it will be perfectly over the bottom part of the lower shaft where the output is. However, although they are in alignment when centered, the lower weight is not because it is off center and an angle dictated by the lower shafts upper connection distance from the lever rod.
If no force was given by the input lever, no matter how small is being input to it at the very top, the whole machine would slow down so it absolutely contributes it’s force to whip the upper weight, which whips the lower shaft around.
Going back to looking at the whole vertical drive assembly, that lower weight is is only a few inches from being balanced…not balanced by the lower shaft being vertical of course, but by having the lower weight angled back instead of tipping forward.
Of course tipping it back would just cause it to freespin around until it is on the incline of the shaft, but we’re looking at where is the center of gravity for the mass of the lower weight and shaft and that is what is important. seeing that they are close to being balanced, it doesn’t take much force to rotate it with this mechanism. Once it is up to speed, the mass is spinning around, which is not locked to the shaft where it is connected to the translation coupler, but it is locked to the part of the shaft that goes out the bottom to pull work from.
That mass spinning around will create some serious torque and it doesn’t take much to get that mass spinning. The bigger the mass, the slower it has to go to produce the same amount of torque. If we had a lower weight the size of a school bus, it could go so slow that at only a couple rotations per minute but would snap a crowbar like a toothpick.
Once the system is synchronized and everything is spinning away, all the momentum of the lower weight and upper weight relieve the input requirement on the input lever so only the loss has to be made up.
Input lever force to kick translation coupler > translation coupler gets this force and helps to kick the upper weight around > that helps to move the shaft to move the lower weight around.
I do want to comment on some comments I’ve seen. Some say it is not gravity, it is the centrifugal force of the lower weight – some are saying it is only gravity, etc… it is all of them combined.
The weight spinning has some serious forces but gravitational potential energy is constantly being turned into rotational mechanical work at the lower weight so it is a combination of both in addition to the input from the input lever. If gravity does not contribute, you then have a closed equilibrium system that is solely reliant on the input to the lever for it’s source potential and it would have no gain.
WHEN ASKED IF AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT WAS NECESSARY
Yes – it needs to be elliptical. I have worked out multiple ways to cause the input lever to be moved in an ellipse at the top but keep coming back to Skinner’s method as being the best.
In a circular orbit, you get no real reversal or reaction.
With an elliptical orbit, you get a strong one every 180 degrees – at each end of the length – but instead of that reactive power bucking the system, it actually propels it forward.
This machine is a mechanical version of Jim Murray’s SERPS machine in principle but it applies to every machine that takes a reaction and uses it to continue to produce work in the forward direction instead of resisting the production of work.
Newton’s 3rd law of motion is always misunderstood and claimed to be an equal and opposite reaction when in reality, the truth is that the forces are divided between two reference points.
For anyone that isn’t caught up in dogmatic myths, there is no equal and opposite reaction in both elliptical mechanism in the machine thereby violating Newton’s 3rd law of motion the way it is commonly taught because if it applied, each half cycle of the ellipse would buck against the forward motion but it doesn’t – it assist the machine in the forward direction.
It is mechanical jujitsu – using a force that could be in opposition to you but you allow for a method to let it help the progress continue in its same direction. The SERPS machine is electrical jujitsu.
This is the same in the Ramos machine and the Veljko machine as well as mechanical amplifiers designed by Peter Lindemann and some that I’ve even come up with myself. It is a universal principle that applies to EVERY mechanical machine that turns reactive power into positive work in positive time.
So yes, absolutely, it needs to be an elliptical path as a circle will only cause equilibrium in the machine and that is what we want to stay far away from.