I have been intreagued by the Skinner machine and so decided to look into what potential there is in harvesting the centrifugal force power. So I started by rotating a weight on and arm attached to a battery operated screwdriver.
And that simple experiment gave me hope because it could lift more weight than the weight on the arm's leverage could lift.
Since I did not know the work in from the screw driver I replaced it with a weight on a string to drive the rotation so I could know by weight and distance how much work in was required. And likewise I could know the work out but the lifted weight times the lifted distance.
I made the rotating arm so it could move back and forth like a seesaw so that it could lift a weight. So here are my current measurements.
I use nuts and washers for weights since they can be changed easily.
I drove the rotation via 3 nuts (5/16 inch) on a string. I lifted 4+ (5/16 inch nuts 4.66 units ). The driving weights dropped 3.125 inches for each revolution giving 9.375 units of work in. The lifted 4.66 unit of weight lifted 1.125 inches giving 5.245 units of work out but I only lifted weight on one side so with the other side it would be 10.485 units out. That is almost
112% output.
Along the way I found that tweaking the speed/weight on the string and
tweaking the weight on the arm and the weight lifted gave various results.
So with my very crude device presented here I hope you can see this for yourself and maybe improve on what I did.
I believe that what Skinner did was to cascade his OU multiple times. So I theorize that if we had 1:2 ie 200% cascading would indeed give some very significant power.
Here are some referenced to the Skinner machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEat-8zOjlE 15 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTR9r5-sENc Mario Gudec annimation
Published on Dec 25, 2015
being discussed here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17195-william-f-skinner-1939-gravity-power-23.html
good stuff here....
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17195-william-f-skinner-1939-gravity-power.html
http://overunity.com/14655/1939-gravity-power-multiply-power-by-1200/msg430676/#msg430676
Attached is a photo of my crude work. I had a lot of fun making and tweaking this from scratch in about 2 days.
I see hope that there is power in the centrifugal principle...
Norman
Here is a little better photo that blocks out some of the extra things that are not part of the device.
Notice the clever u-joint that drives the device so that when the rotating
weight shifts left and right it still keeps turning. - very simple and effective.
The pivot is a 3/16 bolt at the bottom of the shifting wood and there are stops
half way up to limit its travel.
Norman
There are 3 variables to change. 1. driving down weight, 2. lifted
weights, 3. rotation weights. And by adding rotation weight I got the
efficiency up to 120%.
I posted this because of its simplicity and crude and quick and dirty construction. I never waste a lot of time in a beautify machine that
does not perform. I used soft iron bailing wire, string, and clementine box
plywood and hot glue to hold things in place...
And I choose not to use measuring meters - just raw weight and distance
so there is no instrument calibration arguments.
So here is your chance to make OU in a day with the photo from this thread.
I only wish I understood how Skinner got 1200%. That might take another year or so.....my brain bursts come in spurts and this one has been a good burst in about 4 days.
Norman
well when one listen to this utube one hears 1/8 hp motor power all his
whole work shop ,hacksaw, lathe..and that was done through this mechanical belt system..
Norman if you want help with the "Skinner" device only through private contact, I post here no more...Resident trolls will skin you to your bones and destroy you..
I will answer within 24 hours...
Acca..
ps Aron has patents in mind and he is a shark after himself only, not to help anyone... at energetic forum.. look out..!
Today I made a new version that balances the gravity factor out to zero and
then I get 192% work out vs work in.
I driving the rotation with
2 5/16 nuts traveling 3.125 inches giving 6.25 units of work in.
2 5/16 nuts are lifted 3 inches for 180 degrees and with 360 then
we have 2 x 56 = 12 units out....
That is way better than I was expecting.
That is strictly centrifical/centrifugal force only....
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on August 31, 2017, 04:10:32 PM
Today I made a new version that balances the gravity factor out to zero and
then I get 192% work out vs work in.
I driving the rotation with
2 5/16 nuts traveling 3.125 inches giving 6.25 units of work in.
2 5/16 nuts are lifted 3 inches for 180 degrees and with 360 then
we have 2 x 56 = 12 units out....
That is way better than I was expecting.
That is strictly centrifical/centrifugal force only....
Norman
Can you post a video of your machine in operation please? thank you.
My upload to youtube of my first build fails. I'll work on that.
I am now way past that...
Meanwhile focus on the basics.
I started with Skinner and then got curious about centrifical force
and went here.
You have seen various centrifical forces..
1. water in bucket swung over your head does not fall out.
2. moon, satelites keep their orbit because centrifical
force and speed and gravity are matched.
No. 3 below really got me convinced...
3. rope and 2 weights by wacky scientist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3BSkMj1wLc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3BSkMj1wLc)
Centrifugal Force : Dramatic demonstrations in Physics by Prof
Julius Sumner Miller
rope 1 gram lifts 10 gram at 8m 25sec
4. screwdriver or drill rotating a weight goes wacko
with its wobble.... can't take that to the bank....
II. Then I got more curious - how could I measure that to know how much work in/out
5. I made the device above to measure centrifical force and got work in/out 120% -- impressive. Now I'm off an running....
As you can guess the device above is very sensitive to the balance
of the weight dropping to rotate the rotating weight and the weight
being lifted... The faster it spins the more centrifical force and the more
weight lifted....
It really works. The above design has some serious losses in it but I have measured it in two devices and both are OU - more work out than in.
You basically know all you need to know now...
But it needs some enhancements to get more power.
I'm working on them now...Then comes the power out
feedback. That is very difficult because the "make power" and
"apply power" must be two entirely separate systems -
they can't be coupled directly together very tightly like gears/belts.....
I have those plans but not yet built....
My brain bursts come slowly....but they do come...
I have worked at this stuff for about 15 years and have boxes
and boxes of stuff I made and tried.
I do rapid prototype to show the concept then I can
always go on to a Naudin type impecable presentation.
I am so excited I can hardly rest these days. I can't believe this
has been overlooked all these years...We fly airplanes everyday
and use satellites for internet communication but have not harnessed
centrifical force for power.
Norman
This reminds me of a vacuum centrifugal pump that first suck air to lift water which finally enters the pump.
With enough RPM's you can essentially lift anything with the centrifugal force. However, the further out the mass that is being rotating is (as the weight you want to lift moves upwards), you must apply energy to keep up the RPM, because angular velocity of that rotating mass will increase.
You can easily calculate kinetic energy of the rotating mass, and compare it to the potential energy in the weight you lift up from the ground. They should be very similar.
If you have reached 20% overunity (120% efficiency), then congratulations :-)
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on September 04, 2017, 09:53:19 AM
This reminds me of a vacuum centrifugal pump that first suck air to lift water which finally enters the pump.
With enough RPM's you can essentially lift anything with the centrifugal force.
Thanks for your comment Vidar. I never thought that far.
I guess that is part of the Tesla turbine and the Schuamberger stuff.
My enhancements gave me 192%. I never expected that much.
Norman
However, the further out the mass that is being rotating is (as the weight you want to lift moves upwards), you must apply energy to keep up the RPM, because angular velocity of that rotating mass will increase.
You can easily calculate kinetic energy of the rotating mass, and compare it to the potential energy in the weight you lift up from the ground. They should be very similar.
If you have reached 20% overunity (120% efficiency), then congratulations :-)
Vidar
The Tesla-turbine is driven by high pressure air or water. As a pump, it is quite inefficient. Well, the Tesla-turbine is quite inefficient in both ways as it relies on friction between the discs. There are no actual solid obstacles that is pushed by the flowing meduim.
A centrifugal pump is what you find in vacuum cleaners. A turbine with blades :-)
Anyway, I look forward to your progress on your experiment, Norman. Watch people build things is allways fun :)
Your information about the Tesla turbine is incorrect. It does not depend on friction. It works on the boundary layer effect and in fact is very efficient when used as a pump or as a turbine. They are being used more and more in industry because of their durability and efficiency. Here is a link to an article that gives some real data from actual builders of Tesla turbines.
http://www.teslaengine.org/images/teba17p11.pdf
Respectfully,
Carroll
Thanks for the information about the tesla turbine, Carroll.
Vidar
Ok folks, I'm going to move on to the skinner oval movement. I really want to get a measurement similar to this setup. I'd like to measure the Skinner trick. I have learned much from this setup.
So I put out the YELLOW CAUTION FLAG.
You can learn from this like me but I'm not sure its very useful.
I'm still not sure you can lift 2 times in the 360 degree rotation.
The mechanism to do that has too much slop in it to work well.
As I was waking this week I thought Skinner stuff and realized that he might
be using the amusement ride we liked as a kid - the whip. The car
went around an oval and when it got to the turn at the end the car swung out to the side and gave you a dose of centrifical force.....and I was reminded
that iceskaters did the same thing with a line and the skater at the end
went really fast. But he cleverly disconnected the input from the output.
The only connection was the axle that the output was connected to by a bearing to.
Now I have to reread my Skinner notes and make up a test device.
Norman
"The mechanism to do that has too much slop in it to
work well."
Unless the mechanism can overtake the slop
I did some more work with centrifical force and had some good success.
I magine a bicycle turned upside down with the pedals and crank up and
all tubing cut off except for the seat tube and that seat tube is on a pivot.
Then replace the pedals with weights and as they rotate there will be a
centrifical force twisting from one side to the other as the work out.
I had used a horizontal version of this earlier but it had losses to reset
and repeat due to an incline but with 2 opposite weights and vertical rotation
those losses are eliminated.
There is a rhythm to the twisting that is mechanical in nature and I did
not get the desired twist all of the time. Yes is is over unity but not
constantly. I present the idea for anyone who wants to improve this.
Attached is a drawing to match the above description and also a photo.
It was driven by a weight on a string which also lifted another weight
on a string from the twisting. I wanted a latching and releasing mechanism
but could not design one with close enough tolerance to work.
Norman
In regard to mechanical devices, the matter seems very clear to me:
Can a set mass be switched on and off, in effect, thru some sort of rotation? If any anomaly can be shown to do this, that might create free energy.
I finally got my video uploaded. Youtube lost my original id and I had to make a new one
when google took over.
https://youtu.be/ezEFbl-7wpY
This will show the twisting output from the centrifical balanced bicycle crank
rotation. A weight on a string drives the rotation that generates the twisting.
I do not have work out measured yet because it requires a 2 ratchet setup
to lift and hold the weight for several cycles so I can get a good measurement.
Now that its cold and Christmas is over I will have time to work on this.
Norman
Quote from: Eighthman on December 04, 2017, 12:23:12 PM
In regard to mechanical devices, the matter seems very clear to me:
Can a set mass be switched on and off, in effect, thru some sort of rotation? If any anomaly can be shown to do this, that might create free energy.
"switched on/off"? or "effectively" switched on/off?
as we know, gyroscopic precession can nullify the force of gravity.
which, in essence, is how I see this machine as functioning.
Because the weights are not only rotating, but moving up and down
through the gravitational field, this puts forces on the main-pivot.
The pivot controls what "up and down" are, with respect to the
rotating weights.
As to effectively switching mass on or off, I was thinking about a simple experiment by physicist Richard Vialle (j naudin site)
He built a pivoting balance beam structure. One end had a motor, the other end had a weighty rotor that was driven by that motor, thru a long shaft.
It was well balanced but when he accelerated the rotor, it got lighter (went up). When deaccelerated, it got more weighty.
Simple as that. Indeed, I was shocked by how simple this was in contrast to what (I think) it suggests.
https://youtu.be/pw3lpFvuzps (https://youtu.be/pw3lpFvuzps)
https://youtu.be/jCOctgVIR6Q (https://youtu.be/jCOctgVIR6Q)
And
https://youtu.be/g4KGjadObaY (https://youtu.be/g4KGjadObaY)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 10, 2018, 09:03:47 PM
https://youtu.be/jCOctgVIR6Q (https://youtu.be/jCOctgVIR6Q)
And
https://youtu.be/g4KGjadObaY (https://youtu.be/g4KGjadObaY)
David Quirey did a wonderful job on that setup. That gave me the trigger to work on
just what centrifical force would do. I never went back to the Skinner stuff because
there were a couple guys that made very serious replications that did not pan out
so I thought I could probably not add anything more.
Norman
The thing to take from skinner,
Is that the driving force is the axial tilt.
Not a direct rotational torque.
The rotational force is caused by gravity.
The axial-tilt is caused by the rotary-to-linear (crank) drive
of the small motor.
The tilt is assisted by the rotational precession force.
Change in rotational angle exerts a force on the axis.
David Quirey restricts the axis to 2 dimensions of freedom.
Back and forth.
Skinners machines actually allowed for 360-degrees of freedom of axial-tilt.
Restricted to the elliptical path of the crank.
Quirey shows the resultant "sine wave" figure 8 pattern.
Skinner, the wobbling-ellipse.
In both cases, the rotating force is gravity, on the mass of the off-set weights.
The linear force, is the tilting of a balanced-mass on a vertical shaft.
These are two entirely different forces, numerically.
Thanks sm0ky2 for that excellent description of those forces at play.
I knew the tilting was important but not why.
I'm wondering how this may apply to the Bessler wheel.
He mentioned "constantly falling" and that is what the tilt
seems to do.
Norman
Quote from: webby1 on January 11, 2018, 08:04:31 AM
Did the test show that the mass was effected, changed or some how no longer under the influence of gravity,,,,, or did it show that the lever arm moment was modified or decreased by precesion.
All the tests I have seen that were done on a scale had the scale showing the same weight.
A lot of people confuse mass with weight.
and weight with gravitational energy.
The first two are as far apart as the second two.
Mass is an inherent property of physical matter.
The mass of an object stays the same wherever you put it.
The weight of an object is a property of the gravitational field it is in.
objects can have positive or negative weight, but the mass stays the same.
Here on earth, the acceleration is positive (9.8m/s/s).
Things less than the mass of the earth, have a positive weight.
gravitational energy is a function of local time-space.
relative velocity plays a major part in this. (at speeds close to c)
Your "apparent weight" at close to light-speed would be much greater.
This effects the moment of inertia as well as our use of mass, mathematically.
These are very simplistic terms to vaguely describe extremely complex interactions,
I say these things only to point out that the forces at play are different in nature.
And should not be considered as the same things. Though they are all interrelated.
Also, scales read force. Generally in one vector.
And it is easily proven that no matter where you place your scale, in the experiment
you are not measuring all of the forces, in all of the vectors.
The force in the downward vector will always be g
So, empirically your weight never changes on earth. But your "effective weight" can.
it is the forces in the other vectors that control your "effective weight".
Bouyancy, centrifugal forces, magnetism, inertia/momentum, whatever the case may be.
When we consider a rotating mass shifting from the horizontal plane of rotation,
to a non-horizontal vector, forces come into play that are not in the vertical vector.
these can translate to a reduction or an increase in "effective weight".
The result is an increase or decrease in gravitational acceleration.
A gyro on a lever, with a balanced counter weight will "see-saw" in response to changes in
rotation as well as changes in angle of rotation.
two gyros on a central axis can cause rotation of the arm or wheel about its axis.
In the horizontal plane, we can see these forces at play independently
In other vectors, the gravitational force is factored in.
Sm0ky2
Recently Les Banki forwarded this simple experiment from Kevin Hays [along with other experiments from Kevin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9KCI5J-Thg
a friend of ours is building to investigate the claim , he is a very good open source builder ...but likes his quiet time when investigating claims .
will update when results arrive .
and yes to the rolling eyes in the cheap seats...we know its impossible..
or is It?
no stone left unturned
Edit
Hmmm
I see the flogging continues below ...
that poor pony needs some oats...
but yes Mr.Hays does grow.....errrr medical pharmaceuticals....
... "Stoned" being the operative word here, I think....
I don't see that Vialle's balance beam experiment involved precession exactly. Nor do I see much benefit in arguing definitions if it is possible to transiently overcome gravity in a rotating mass, in such a way as to allow a net gain of energy.
Indeed, one reason I think this field is worth looking at is because it is viewed as tin foil hat 'toxic' or a dead end because centrifugal force gets labeled as a pseudo force and after that all thinking seems to stop. Pat answers are eagerly accepted by physics people and the matter ends there. In addition, the people who actually bother to experiment keep misunderstanding the causes of what they observe - or fail to figure out how to close the loop. Hence, skeptics appear and dismiss whatever gadget is shown by questioning any continuing input. As with Skinner....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-do-zero-gravity-planes-work-parabolic-flights/
<regards
Mike 8)
Thanks Mike,
That's a true change in "weight".
by accelerating (downward) at the acceleration of g
You effectively cancel out the gravitational force,
Making your weight =0.
your mass has not changed,
And the gravitational energy (referenced to ground level)
only decreases at a rate of g
Your weight drops to 0, regardless of its initial value.
This is different from an upward force = g
In this scenario gravitational force drops to 0,
But the weight stays the same.
[edit] in one perspective it is the same,
an upwards force of g from another perspective
creates "double the weight" in terms of forces on
the object being measured.
A NEW GRAVITY POWER GENERATOR.
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwniU8W54P8
Quote from: seychelles on April 22, 2018, 01:04:13 AM
A NEW GRAVITY POWER GENERATOR.
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwniU8W54P8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwniU8W54P8)
So basically you roll heavy weights over a ramp that can be pushed down and
lift a weight up to a max of the rolling weight which can then be used to do work...
I always understood that going up a ramp takes as much ft/lbs as a direct lift of the
same weight. Granted you have to overcome inertia to get it started but then you
keep it going with less work.
So lets say my driveway is level and I get the car started rolling into the garage but
the garage floor is sloped up so water runs out. When I get to the garage floor it will
take more work to push the car into the garage.
Its all about measurements - work in vs work out.
So I propose pulling some rolling weights with a weight on a string and measuring
how much weight can be lifted as work out....
Then get mass x distance for work in and work out.
Finsrud did this with a ball that pushed a rod down and kept tapping the pendulum
to keep it moving....
Norman
This is mi idea on my youtube chanel:
https://youtu.be/csWqd_zchro
This is exactly the kind of device I think will work because it has several mechanisms that all work
together. But now what counts is a real device. Go for it.
Norman
Hi juliotony,
I agree with Norman.
The usual magnetic sticky spot of such setups (in your case it is at the 12 o'clock position) seems to be mostly
compensated by gravity. You have a clever combination of the weight and the spring to do the compensation,
while the rotation comes from magnetic attraction.
Hopefully you will be able to build such prototype setup to see it working.
Gyula
timed out to double post........................................................
using the Gravity field to open the gate.....
intuitive and smart ....
Juliotony
are you also a fabricator ?
the community here [and elsewhere] could sponsor /support an open source replication of your idea ?
I agree, needs a build .
respectfully
Chet K
PSthis idea needs its own thread IMO