Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%

Started by cipbranea, May 21, 2014, 01:38:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

ARMCORTEX

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.





d3x0r

Quote from: Dev on August 16, 2014, 09:36:39 AM
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

ARMCORTEX

Dexor, see my postrs on pendulum power

I put many new mechanism.

ARMCORTEX

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.






gotoluc

Hope you're not wrong and wish you success.

Thanks for sharing

Luc