1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%

[AlanA]

thanks to cipbranea who puts our attention to the Skinner invention.
But it seems to be a hard way to find out how it really works.

Someone in the Forum puts the attention to TheJohnDevice which is at YouTube since last year. It seems to me that this very clever and easy to understanding Invention is underappreciatet. I did some researches and found out that the patent was granted two weeks ago (which does not means very much): see: WO2014072966A2

Well I think TheJohnDevice is the best gravity engine I have ever seen. What Quiman #77 said makes me thinking.
He has written:
"That John device though is not the same mechanism and putting two weights opposite on the shaft defeats the asymmetry of the system. His attachment at the top is also going in a circle - not elliptical and if I grab the bottom weight on his device, it will stop the input because they are in lock-step with each other and the input and output MUST NOT BE directly proportional to each other.

If you grab the output, you should be able to do so and the input can still spin without locking up and visa versa - lock up the input and the bottom weight can still free spin around the axis. We're dealing with open dissipative systems that are out of equilibrium. If the input and output are directly related to each other, then forget about it - no gains."
I think he is right. But if the Input and the Output is a steady Output I would not matter (for example to load a battery). I think it would not work as an engine for a car or so on which accelerations and stops.

[qiman]

Just because the drive is offsetted doesnt mean you will get infinite gain.

I think Chalkalis claimed something like 300 times OU , while others said 8-10.

Thats the maximum I heard about, so you are incorrect, and according to you Jim Murray would have infinite OU but his factor is only 2.

Not sure who you're responding to but someone's claims are irrelevant of 300 times OU. Where is a replication to verify at least some of it? Replicating the concept and getting positive results are all important and until that happens, it is just a claim. 8-10 is quite a bit different from 300 - so with that kind of variation, what can we really believe? Both cases sound good to me no matter how big or small.

With the Skinner machine, here is an old device with claims and I replicated the entire mechanism and verified with mechanical work measurements as well as electrical input (way lower than Skinner - but it is a crude build) - so you're only making assumptions without ever having built this mechanism. The amount of "OU" that I can measure is irrelevant - the fact that it is - is what counts. If you create 1hp for 745 watts instead of 746, you're overunity. My own build is quite crude and not optimized. Needs heavier weight instead of the aluminum, etc... but the improved and simplified input mechanism that I created could make it really easy but I already shared more than enough.

[qiman]

Well I think TheJohnDevice is the best gravity engine I have ever seen. What Quiman #77 said makes me thinking.
He has written:
"That John device though is not the same mechanism and putting two weights opposite on the shaft defeats the asymmetry of the system. His attachment at the top is also going in a circle - not elliptical and if I grab the bottom weight on his device, it will stop the input because they are in lock-step with each other and the input and output MUST NOT BE directly proportional to each other.

If you grab the output, you should be able to do so and the input can still spin without locking up and visa versa - lock up the input and the bottom weight can still free spin around the axis. We're dealing with open dissipative systems that are out of equilibrium. If the input and output are directly related to each other, then forget about it - no gains."
I think he is right. But if the Input and the Output is a steady Output I would not matter (for example to load a battery). I think it would not work as an engine for a car or so on which accelerations and stops.

I saw these claims about that machine, but making a claim on that John device of x watts in to move y pounds doesn't mean anything. If there is an ice sled on a frozen lake with a hundred pounds in it, a little kid could push it and make it budge, but that doesn't mean overunity.

That machine needs to have a rotor on the shaft with a 1 foot circumference for example, put a leather strap around it and pull both ends against the pull with spring loaded scales to calculate the real mechanical work done. When that work is done, then see how many watts is being drawn from the power supply on the front end to do that work.

I just posted the video on my blog so you can see the "secrets" to the entire mechanism: http://emediapress.com/2014/05/31/revealed-gravity-power-secrets/

Also shows why the input and output have to be coupled together but are able to move independently of each other - otherwise, gravity is not contributing anything. I also show exactly what is mean by the lower weight "always falling" and how to accomplish it with this mechanism. It also shows how to translate the input lever action from a mostly back and forth motion to the translation coupler which causes it to move in a rotary fashion - yet, the center of axis that the upper weight and shaft for lower weight keeps moving so it causes the elliptical orbit.

That is now enough for anyone to replicate the entire machine so everyone can do their own measurements. I hope that helps. I'm putting this all out really quick to prevent it from going down the wrong track with disinformation, which happens all to often with too many legitimate "OU" machines.

[ARMCORTEX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBWukDu2IeU

I have seen many novelties, some are good, some are excellent. But I am on a quest for ''holy grail'' COP, my needs are more than 10 kW OU for such a  large device.

I know that your friend, Peter Lindemann, doesnt like this video, whats up with that ?

Whats up with his device too ? Such a shameful device, such a slow mover, sometimes I wonder ...

[qiman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBWukDu2IeU

I have seen many novelties, some are good, some are excellent. But I am on a quest for ''holy grail'' COP, my needs are more than 10 kW OU for such a  large device.

I know that your friend, Peter Lindemann, doesnt like this video, whats up with that ?

Whats up with his device too ? Such a shameful device, such a slow mover, sometimes I wonder ...

Peter is entitled to his own opinion and the website promoting what you are referencing is Peswiki, which is owned by Sterling, not Peter so take it up with Sterling.

Before judging anything Peter is doing - what contributions have you made? Can you post links to your developments? Surely you have posted your own builds so your criticism is justified of other people's work.

If you think the Chalkalis machine is valid, you will probably solve your energy needs. Seems that you already found the machine you should build - definitely much simpler than the Skinner machine.

Peter is one of the most prolific builders I have ever met and I value his opinion highly. If you disagree, that is your right. I saw this thread posted about the Skinner machine so I'm revealing what it is. Anyone is free to take it or leave it.