# 1939 Gravity Power Replications & Updates

There are already some replication attempts on the 1939 Gravity Power Machine by William F. Skinner. Beside my own, Eltimple, Shylo and a couple others have been posting their replication attempts here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17195-william-f-skinner-1939-gravity-power.html

Here is Eltimple’s mini replication attempt:

Sun, Earth, Moon

The relationship of the upper weight to the lower weight shaft is like the MOON and EARTH. The Earth rotates on its own axis while the Moon does not. However, as the Earth moves through space once around its axis of rotation around the SUN (lever), the moon has made one rotation. In a year is a day and the Earth goes around the Sun one time per day, the Moon has spun 360 degrees in that one day while all the time showing it’s same side to the Earth.

If you took a string with a weight on the end, held it out and turned in a circle, the string would stretch out and the weight would go out and be held by the string. As you turned around in circles on your own axis, the same side of the weight is facing you so to you it is not rotatig on its own axis, however, with each one rotation you make on your own axis, the weight (moon) has indeed revolved 360 degrees in space.

I don’t want to get too much into all of that right now, but something to think about. The whole Skinner mechanism is like the Sun, Earth and Moon where it takes one day for the Earth to revolve around the Sun and the Moon always stays in the same position relative to the Earth and Sun like the 3 points of a right angle triangle and the hypotenuse is from the Sun to Moon and the right angle is at the Earth..

Not a perfect analogy but the principles are all there.

Here is a paper by Nikola Tesla on this concept: The Moon’s Rotation by Nikola Tesla (pdf)

SOME COMMENTS ON THE SOURCE OF THE PRIMARY FORCE
The first force in the Skinner machine is the electric motor, which is mechanical work to turn pulleys by belts to move the mechanism that rotates the input lever in an elliptical motion. The whole machine has multiple levels of leveraging leverage so to speak.

That motor doesn’t need to supply very much work to turn the top of the lever around in an elliptical way because the pivot is way down at the bottom of that level – with let’s say 90% of the length of the lever above the pivot, very little is needed because of the mechanical advantage of the length of the lever.

“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” – Archimedes quotes (Mathematician and inventor of ancient Greece, 280-211bc)

That is probably one of a hundred variations of that quote but that’s the point.

The bottom of that “input lever” connected to the translation coupler with coupler freely spinning around it serves as the center axis of rotation for BOTH the upper weight fixed to that coupler plate and the upper part of the lower shaft connected the the coupler plate, which also spins freely from the coupler plate. They both rotate in perfect circles around the bottom of the input lever. But they of course go in an elliptical orbit because that center of axis (bottom part of input lever) for both the upper weight upper part of the lower shaft is moving in the same ellipse as the upper part of the input lever, but just inverse but in the same direction of rotation.

The force imparted by the bottom of the lever to move that part of the translation coupler causes a reaction in the upper weight to whip around in the same direction that the input lever is going – like I showed in the graph paper demo (coupler plate demo – not the upper input mechanism demo). That reaction is possible because of the specific placement of the input lever on the plate in relation to the upper weight placement and lower shaft placement on the plate as well. If the upper weight was on the other side or if the lever was turned in the opposite direction, you lose the effect and try to run the machine backwards.

So the force that gets the upper weight to swing around is directly from the input lever. Once it gets going, it obviously has momentum and when up to speed, the input lever only has to make up for the loss on each rotation, which is almost nothing with no load and still only a small percentage under load.

As the upper weight moves together with the small input of the lever just to maintain that momentum, the lower shaft’s upper part follows it and the center of gravity for the lower weight is constantly moved so it has to constantly fall to the new center of gravity, which it can’t catch up to.

Now look at the whole vertical drive as one unit. The lower shaft and weight are held slightly off center by being held in the translation coupler and that translation coupler is held in place by being connected to the bottom of the input lever. If the input lever is perfectly vertical, it will be perfectly over the bottom part of the lower shaft where the output is. However, although they are in alignment when centered, the lower weight is not because it is off center and an angle dictated by the lower shafts upper connection distance from the lever rod.

If no force was given by the input lever, no matter how small is being input to it at the very top, the whole machine would slow down so it absolutely contributes it’s force to whip the upper weight, which whips the lower shaft around.

Going back to looking at the whole vertical drive assembly, that lower weight is is only a few inches from being balanced…not balanced by the lower shaft being vertical of course, but by having the lower weight angled back instead of tipping forward.

Of course tipping it back would just cause it to freespin around until it is on the incline of the shaft, but we’re looking at where is the center of gravity for the mass of the lower weight and shaft and that is what is important. seeing that they are close to being balanced, it doesn’t take much force to rotate it with this mechanism. Once it is up to speed, the mass is spinning around, which is not locked to the shaft where it is connected to the translation coupler, but it is locked to the part of the shaft that goes out the bottom to pull work from.

That mass spinning around will create some serious torque and it doesn’t take much to get that mass spinning. The bigger the mass, the slower it has to go to produce the same amount of torque. If we had a lower weight the size of a school bus, it could go so slow that at only a couple rotations per minute but would snap a crowbar like a toothpick.

Once the system is synchronized and everything is spinning away, all the momentum of the lower weight and upper weight relieve the input requirement on the input lever so only the loss has to be made up.

Input lever force to kick translation coupler > translation coupler gets this force and helps to kick the upper weight around > that helps to move the shaft to move the lower weight around.

I do want to comment on some comments I’ve seen. Some say it is not gravity, it is the centrifugal force of the lower weight – some are saying it is only gravity, etc… it is all of them combined.

The weight spinning has some serious forces but gravitational potential energy is constantly being turned into rotational mechanical work at the lower weight so it is a combination of both in addition to the input from the input lever. If gravity does not contribute, you then have a closed equilibrium system that is solely reliant on the input to the lever for it’s source potential and it would have no gain.

WHEN ASKED IF AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT WAS NECESSARY
Yes – it needs to be elliptical. I have worked out multiple ways to cause the input lever to be moved in an ellipse at the top but keep coming back to Skinner’s method as being the best.

In a circular orbit, you get no real reversal or reaction.

With an elliptical orbit, you get a strong one every 180 degrees – at each end of the length – but instead of that reactive power bucking the system, it actually propels it forward.

This machine is a mechanical version of Jim Murray’s SERPS machine in principle but it applies to every machine that takes a reaction and uses it to continue to produce work in the forward direction instead of resisting the production of work.

Newton’s 3rd law of motion is always misunderstood and claimed to be an equal and opposite reaction when in reality, the truth is that the forces are divided between two reference points.

For anyone that isn’t caught up in dogmatic myths, there is no equal and opposite reaction in both elliptical mechanism in the machine thereby violating Newton’s 3rd law of motion the way it is commonly taught because if it applied, each half cycle of the ellipse would buck against the forward motion but it doesn’t – it assist the machine in the forward direction.

It is mechanical jujitsu – using a force that could be in opposition to you but you allow for a method to let it help the progress continue in its same direction. The SERPS machine is electrical jujitsu.

This is the same in the Ramos machine and the Veljko machine as well as mechanical amplifiers designed by Peter Lindemann and some that I’ve even come up with myself. It is a universal principle that applies to EVERY mechanical machine that turns reactive power into positive work in positive time.

So yes, absolutely, it needs to be an elliptical path as a circle will only cause equilibrium in the machine and that is what we want to stay far away from.

# Solar Stirling 1.5kw

Here is a great video showing a giant solar Stirling engine producing 1.5 kw of electricity from a 100C temperature differential between cold water and heat in a greenhouse. 1.5 kw is a lot of energy for a small village and the technology is fairly low-tech.

Peter Lindemann has been talking about the exact same setup for years that you see in the video – you can learn more at this discussion: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10145-scaled-up-solar-stirling.html

# Salterwater and Graphene Produce Electricity

Researchers in China discovered that by dragging salt water over graphene, electricity is produced. It is only a small amount but it paves the way for future possibilities. Perhaps the future hydro generator is to run water over a flat surface of graphene instead of turning a turbine.

Here is the full story: http://gizmodo.com/pouring-saltwater-over-graphene-generates-electricity-1563379860

# FULL VERSION – Gravity Power 1939 Reverse Engineering Details

This video is the FULL VERSION of all my 3 videos put together in one place. It shows the reverse engineered details of William Frank Skinner’s 1939 Gravity Power Machine. Watch the video from 1939 to see the original here: http://emediapress.com/2014/05/30/1200-gravity-power/ to see what this video is about.

Come learn more at the conversation: Gravity Power

# Gravity Power Final Details

Here is a short video clip showing the input lever upper mechanism and how I separated the translation coupler from the lower weight’s shaft.

Learn more at the discussion: Gravity Power

# Gravity Power Paper 2

GRAVITY POWER MACHINE
by William F. Skinner, 1939

A small amount of input is leveraged through the lever to to encourage the movement of the Translation Coupler in a clockwise direction. The upper weight spins clockwise from this movement assisting the lever’s back and forth movement. The upper weight counterbalances the weight supported by the tilted Wobble Control Shaft at the connection point with the Translation Coupler. The heavy Lower Output Weight has a high center of gravity from it’s tall weight distribution and the tilt angle is very small. The combination of these two variables makes it very easy to manipulate the entire weight of the Lower Output Weight with very little input by the lever. However, the Lower Output Weight’s mass is very high and as it “falls” by simply rolling to the inside of the Wobble Control Shaft, it’s entire weight is able to produce a strong force at the Output Wheel.

It is very important that the Lower Output Weight is not physically locked to the Wobble Control Shaft. Otherwise, the output would always be directly proportionate to the input work. However, in the case of them being related, yet not in “lock-step”, the output could be stopped without having a direct stopping action on the input. And therefore, if the input lever was stopped, the Lower Output Weight would continue to spin around the stopped Wobble Control Shaft while continuing to produce power at the Output Wheel until it rand out of momentum.

It is also important to note that the Translation Coupler is causing motion in the Wobble Control Shaft in an elliptical orbit. That means there are two points in the rotation where the speed and power of the weights are increased before they switch direction in the opposite direction of the long length of the orbit. The counter reaction from this movement does not oppose the input lever but rather reinforces it so that the reaction assists the machine’s movement in the forward direction.

This is a true open dissipative system, which does not conform to conventional Laws of Thermodynamics or Laws of Motion, as they are conventionally interpreted.

Aaron Murakami
12/2/2012 1:26:09 AM

Better images will be on Energetic Forum here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17195-william-f-skinner-1939-gravity-power.html

# 1939 Gravity Power Paper

Here is a brief paper I wrote a year ago to detail a bit of my observations of this Gravity Power machine built by William F. Skinner.

This will be reposted in Energetic Forum and I’ll try to make the pictures bigger and more clear. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17195-william-f-skinner-1939-gravity-power.html

William F. Skinner

Gravity Power Machine, 1939

William Frank Skinner was a prolific inventor during the early 1900’s. He was the proprietor of Skinner Manufacturing Company, Inc., in Miami, Florida.

His inventions include a toy moving picture camera, refrigerated water cooler, pulsed alkaline battery rejuvenator, amongst many other inventions.

One invention that made the national news, but apparently immediately disappeared because of its highly disruptive nature is his Gravity Power Machine.

There are no patent or other documents relating to this and only old newspaper copies make any reference to it. And, an obscure video in some British archives, which you can see here: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/gravity-power/query/Skinner and video stills are available here: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/stills/gravity-power.

The basic claim is that Mr. Skinner is inputing power from a 1/8 HP electric motor and the output is claimed to be multiplied by 1200%. The output is going to a belt driven lathe and a couple other shop tools that would normally require several horsepower to operate. All that work performed for less than 100 watts.

Here is a copy of one of the nationwide newspaper articles:

Although the claims are extraordinary, by carefully examining the machine in the video and reading the above article, we can deduce exactly what Mr. Skinner had accomplished so that we can create a replica. Let’s take a look at the main parts to the Gravity Power Machine:

1. Input is 1/8 HP electric motor.
2. Geared up input wheel is belt driven from the Input Motor from a 1/8” diameter cotton thread.
3. Input geared up wheel drives a belt that turns the Lever Mover, which moves the four levers back and forth.

The first three steps are simply to move the Input Levers back and forth primarily with a bit of rotation at the top of the lever. This could obviously be done in a number of ways. The back and forth is the primary motion and the slight circular motion of the level from the top increases the effectiveness of the primary mechanism.

My proposed method would be to have a Scottish Yoke assembly to convert rotational movement from a prime mover into linear back and forth movement. There are all kinds of speed controlling mechanisms available today that Mr. Skinner did not have so we should be able to greatly simplify the lever action. And of course we want a lever long enough so that the smallest input is leveraged to the max.

4. All the real action starts by the Input Lever rocking back and forth and having that movement leveraged slightly below the pivot point at the bottom.

When the lever is moved back and forth, its movement pivots around the pivot point. It is not clear whether or not the lever is directly connected to the pivot or is simply clamped there by what is labeled as the “Pivot Spring Clamp.”

In the video, the lever is not solidly locked to the spring clamp as there is some “give” in both directions. It appears there is some sort of “give” mechanism such as a spring, leaf spring or other setup to possibly act as a dampener but also to assist in the leverage process. The spring clamp may be directly connected to the pivot and the lever may possibly be simply clamped in the clamp.

Although this is speculation, it does not take away from the observable fact that the bottom of the lever is moving the swivel bracket. The spring clamp doesn’t appear to be necessary for the primary operation of the machine but is there to enhance the functionality.

5. Looking closely at the swivel bracket, we can see that the diameter of the lever connection is smaller than the lever. So, it is possible that it is the same rod that is simply machined to a smaller diameter for practical purposes for fitting into a bearing in the bracket, or, the lever is disconnected inside of the spring clamp and a separate smaller diameter rod extends from the spring clamp down to the swivel bracket. This lower lever connection is one of three apparent connections to the bracket. The other two are a fixed connection to the upper cylinder weight, which rotates with the swivel bracket. And the other is the lower eccentric wobble shaft, which is connected to the bracket and the bracket freely rotates around this lower shaft.

We can see this clearly in the picture below:

This swivel bracket is where all the real action happens.

As the cylinder weight that is fixed to the swivel bracket swings around in a clockwise direction (from a top down view), its momentum obviously has a tendency to keep it swinging in a circle. This is very important. When the lever is pushed in one direction, it is pushing one corner of the square swivel bracket and that moves in unison with the weight moving in a clockwise direction and when the momentum of the weight pulls it around towards the other direction, it helps to pull the corner that the lever is attached to in the opposite direction.

What this means is that the back and forth reaction of the lever is translated into rotational motion of the swivel bracket. And that shows us that the reaction of the back and forth helps keep the upper weight rotating in the same direction without it being opposed.

Furthermore, as the upper weight is pulled in a circle, it reinforces the lever’s input instead of counter it.

What we have here is an example of an apparent violation of Newton’s Third Law of Motion where the reaction actually assists the machine to perform in the forward direction instead of countering any movement. This is consistent with other known working mechanical amplifiers such as Veljko Milkovic’s 2-Stage Mechanical Oscillator and Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano’s Force Multiplier System where all the reaction in the system is diverted in a way so that it assists the system’s function in the forward direction.

As there is energy dissipation by the rotating upper weight, the lever only needs to input enough to make up for the loss in momentum of the weight, which is very little. Therefore, for a very small periodic input, two times per full rotational cycle, we are getting the full amount of work from the very heavy weight.

Look at the sequence of the steps with the weight rotating clockwise in relation to the pivot point from the lever that simply moves back and forth.

Steps 1~7 are the entire sequence and the 8th step is a repeat of the first to show the complete cycle. The below pictures shows you what each part of the swivel bracket is.

Step 1 – The lever point is to the far left and the weight is to the far right with momentum swinging it in the clockwise direction.

Step 2 – The lever point is still in the left position and the weight is still swinging around.

Step 3 – The lever point is in the same position but the weight is still swinging around.

Step 4 – At this point, the lever point is able to move towards the right direction. When pushing on the bracket from that corner in the right direction, it is in unison with the weight already moving in the clockwise direction. They reinforce each other.

Step 5 – The lever point is at the far right and the weight is at the far left.

Step 6 – The lever point is at the far right and the weight is still swinging around.

Step 7 – As soon as the bracket is situated so that the lever point can move in the opposite direction and move in unison with the weight, it moves towards the left.

Step 8 – Back to position 1.

Again, the momentum of this upper cylindrical weight carries it in a clockwise direction and this mutually reinforces the back and forth movement of the lever’s action. They are in a positive feedback cycle with each other. This translates back and forth motion to rotational movement and the rotational movement assists the lever’s back and forth movement.

As you can see, the weight is not moving around a fixed point of axis, it is moves to the left and right. It is rotating around an axis that is to the left half the time and then to the right half the time. That is the two input pulses from the lever per full rotation.

From the same sequence of steps, we can see that the point at which the lower eccentric shaft connects, it too has a none fixed orbit. Not only does the upper part of the lower shaft wobble around in a circle, it is an orbit that also has a moving axis point.

6. The next part of the trick of the system besides the Swivel Bracket mechanism is the lower weight fixed to the bottom axis of the lower shaft.

The long cylindrical weight is on a bracket that is fixed to the bottom of the lower eccentric shaft. That appears to be the only place that the lower weight is connected. It is also slightly angled outwards. With this weight, it will always try to position itself to be on the inside of the inclined shaft.

As the upper cylinder weight fixed to the Swivel Bracket rotates, the eccentric shaft is connected to the opposite corner of the bracket. The upper weight leads the bracket around and this causes the eccentric orbit of the lower shaft to constantly follow it. Therefore, since the eccentric shaft’s position is constantly changing, the lower eccentric shaft weight is constantly moving to a new center of gravity.

As long as the upper weight continues to circle, the lower weight will continue to follow.

The eccentric shaft has a fixed axis at the bottom and is connected by some means of gears, belts, etc… to a central wheel what turns the long shaft at the bottom left of the above picture. That is the output shaft and it’s power is taken from the large belt that goes to running the lathe.

To summarize, we are leveraging leverage.

We use a very small amount of energy to rock the lever back and forth. With enough length, it takes very little energy to move its connection to the bracket back and forth. The lever’s movement in conjunction with the upper cylinder weight self-reinforces each other’s movements. The back and forth movement is reinforced by the eccentric movement of the weight. And the weight’s eccentric movement is reinforced by the very small input from the back and forth movement of the lever.

As the Swivel Bracket rotates from the above stated action, the lower eccentric shaft’s connection is put on an eccentric orbit, which constantly follows the upper weight’s orbit. This causes the lower eccentric shaft’s weight to follow the upper weight producing torque at the bottom of it’s shaft that can be tapped by an output shaft.

Lever movement > moves bracket > upper weight reinforces lever’s movement > causes eccentric shaft orbit causing a moving center of gravity > lower weight constantly moves to the moving center of gravity causing mechanical shaft power at the bottom.

No laws of physics are violated. It is an open non-equilibrium thermodynamic system that is open to free gravitational potential. This gravitational potential is able to constantly act as a source of work energy on the lower weight because of the constant shifting of the center of gravity that the lower weight is seeking.

From a little input on the lever, we are able to massively amplify the amount of work we can take from the output by the described mechanism. This appears to be the highest COP (coefficient of performance) mechanical amplifier that has ever been revealed to the public.

# 1200% Gravity Power

In 1939, William F. Skinner developed an amazing gravity powered machine that produces 1200% more work than is input from an electric motor. The torque it produces is so large that it is powering his lathe, mill and other equipment at his shop. Look at this old original video:

Almost two years ago, someone pointed out the Gravity Power Machine by William F. Skinner so I dug into and and fully reverse engineered it by looking at the old poor quality video from 1939.

Here is just a small clip of some of my work with it to generate interest in the machine:

I’ll be putting more details and principles involved into Energetic Forum if you want to learn more about this amazing gravity powered machine: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17195-william-f-skinner-1939-gravity-power.html

# Dynaflux Alternator * New Release *

Here is a new interview by Jim Murray and Paul Babcock on Reactive Power as an energy source.  As you may know, we showed a demo where Jim Murray’s SERPS circuit is demonstrating 2000% the heat compared to electrical power drawn from the power supply.

The Dynaflux Alternator package  is available at http://dynafluxalternator.com.