1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%

[centraflow]

Hi Luc


I have posted this on your second video




Hi Luc, I think you have basicly told yourself what is wrong. The top and bottom weights are totally independant and have to be or the load is reflected back to the source. Below the bottom weight has to be a universal joint, the bottom weight is your power source more than the top weight, they are not just a fly wheel. The whole idea is the continually falling weight, this you do not have, and you have them fighting each other. I believe that bottom shaft is straight and not bent, the tie rods are to keep it straight and not flex from the amount of weight at the bottom, what he has done is made the shaft feel as though it is twice it's thickness and so not flex. This is common engineering practice when a shaft is subject to an oliptical centrafugal force, which this is, what ever shape happens at the top will happen at the bottom but in a reduced ratio (compounding force,maybe 6:1) so with an input at the top of 1f you get 6f at the bottom. You see there becomes a multiplication of force in the length of the shaft (same speed but greater power factor) that power factor comes from that falling bottom weight, not from the top, the top is not seeing what the bottom is doing.


I have gone through most of the Skinner system and it is very clever, he must have been a great engineer, keep at it Luc.


regards


Mike

[gotoluc]

Hi Luc

Below the bottom weight has to be a universal joint, the bottom weight is your power source more than the top weight, they are not just a fly wheel. The whole idea is the continually falling weight, this you do not have, and you have them fighting each other. I believe that bottom shaft is straight and not bent

regards


Mike

Well, after reading the above five posts I can see everyone has a different version as to why it doesn't work.

My next test was going to be like Mike is saying.  Before I do that, I would like to hear Mike's thoughts on the below.

Since the lower weight support bar on Mr. Skinner's device turns perfectly horizontal with the frame (see attached video), this would suggest if the shaft does have a universal joint it would be above the support bar, no?... however, we don't see a universal joint there. So how do you explain this?
Let's suppose the universal joint is below the weight support bar, then the only way it would turn horizontal to the frame is if he had welded it at an angle of less then 90 degrees, which would also mean the weight support rod would have to be welded to the bar at more than a 90 degree angle.
Do you think this was done?  as it would be the only explanation as to why the bar is turning horizontal to the frame.

Please explain how this can work with the evidence I've presented.

Thanks for your time

Luc

[AB Hammer]

Hay gotoluc

Your problems with your pillow block bearing can be solved with a universal joint mount like a multi axis. This should reduce the friction for a better test.

Alan

[centraflow]

Hi Luc


I have to go out but on my return I will write a pdf and a drawing of how I see it (still may not be right), all I can do is put my engineering skills into how it can be done.


The principle is simple, it all works on moving the relation of mass to center of gravity, to move the mass takes too much power, but moving the relation of the center of gravity takes very little and gives you a big gain.


regards


Mike

[gotoluc]

Hay gotoluc

Your problems with your pillow block bearing can be solved with a universal joint mount like a multi axis. This should reduce the friction for a better test.

Alan

Thanks Alan
However, at this time the pillow block is good enough for proof of concept, this is not what is preventing the transfer of Gravity to the bottom shaft.
Once the basic principal can be proven to work then I'll invest in the ideal components.

Luc