1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%

[ARMCORTEX]

Did anybody notice the valy videos? Whats with the plethora of devices, is this guy addicted to gravity  ? 3 different OU machines... LOL...

300w (1/2hp)  to 10kw. I have a hard time believing that, I really do . That would make it, the most COP ever for gravity device.

I am gonna try to sim the valy device  in algodoo. I think it can be done, hope my comp can handle that.

Vertical has advantage that its simmable, I know its ridiculous right..simmable OU, would that even be valid or unvalid no matter the result.

Gotoluc, see my videos. Its not hollywod capture but basicly, a bizarre machine, where mass is moved by totally disconnected pendulums wich keep their momentum,
drive by only CF ''fictitious'' force.

[gotoluc]

Gotoluc, see my videos. Its not hollywod capture but basicly, a bizarre machine, where mass is moved by totally disconnected pendulums wich keep their momentum,
drive by only CF ''fictitious'' force.

I'll look at them but can you post a link

Luc

[ARMCORTEX]

http://www.overunity.com/14817/purelyprimitives-pendulum-power/#.U-0k_vldV8F

Im watching Valy now, guy seems to be making a company

[ARMCORTEX]

thx luc for backing me up.

this kid must be so butthurt right now.

as if he just got out of missouri prison, ferguson county.

[Dev]

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.