Gravity Power - 1939 style

[JulesP]

Some of you may have seen this before but, as a prelude to my starting work on a fully working scale model of a flywheel generator, I though I would post this.

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/gravity-power

The 1200% mentioned by the reporter in the text was in fact meant to be a multiplication of 1200 (120,000%) that would result in the approx 110kW to power the town at that time.

My model will be based on the attached design.

Jules

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Jules, you can find a full discussion on it here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...hlight=skinner

[JulesP]

Hi all,

I have spent the autumn building a small scale replication of the William Skinner device using Mecanno. My aim was to test the principles of the device, make a series of measurements of input and output power, using a classical dynomometer approach and to calculate the CoP.
From this I planned to embark on a full scale replication with a view to producing a device capable of generating about 3kW.

As it happened my experiments on the small scale device gave a CoP of 0.1 so a lot more energy was being used by the small motor to move the upper weights and the translation joint then was emerging from the output shaft connected to the lower weights.
This was a big disappointment and very surprising but I have to stand by my results in the scientific approach.

If anyone would like to read my 4 page report and see the video of the device then these are available at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bws0akodi...fIdN6zVZa?dl=0

Thoughts and suggestions are welcomed.

IMG_5780A.jpg

IMG_5785A.jpg

[Aaron Murakami]

Jules, thanks for posting your work. I just downloaded the report. You're right about the small scale vs large scale friction losses. The bigger it is, the smaller the friction percentage per bearing, etc.

I know someone that has a full size 4 quadrant unit - he just has to add the elliptical input mechanism. I'm looking forward to the progress and hope to be able to report something.

[JulesP]

Hi Aaron, thanks for posting as I was just about to write a PM to you to ask for your opinion Yes please report on any results from a full sized unit. Meanwhile I'm now looking at the optimum gearings for a 'Chas Campbell' type flywheel system. I thought there would be some forum posts on this but haven't found any yet.

Jules

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Julian,

Thanks for posting your results. I admire the professionalism and dedication you bring to your experiments! Good work.

I noticed in the video that Skinner's device used four weighted shafts for the output and only one input motor. It also looks to have less inclination on the lower rods (with the output weights attached) and the center of gravity on the lower weights seem to be higher from the bottom attachment point than on your model. I assume that the ratio between the mass of the top and bottom weighs is very important as well as the angle between the center of orbits of the top and bottom shafts.

[JulesP]

Hi Gary,

My small scale device did not replicate all the features of Skinner's original system. You rightly point out some differences but I argued that the key issues of the independently moving upper and lower masses, a greater than 2:1 mass ratio and the elliptical movement of the translation joint should be sufficient to at least demonstrate a CoP around 1 or even a bit under. While raising the centre of gravity might help I did try stacking more weights on the bottom which both increased the mass and raised the CoG but that also required a lot more input power on the small motor to keep it running so I found a happy compromise of all those factors, including the long shaft angle caused by the upper mass orbit. The fact that the CoP was way down has to be due to something else and I proposed that the friction losses will be much higher gram for gram with a small device than a 30kg or larger system and that may or may not be the key.

Thank you for your comments. It's a legacy from my years as a scientist in the NHS. Besides it would be a waste of time to research into something and then be unable to share the results and process with others in a manner that is universally understood. I get frustrated when I see papers written in journals from far away continents where they make simple errors in basic things like units and that undermines all their assuredly concerted effort. If my report was difficult to understand, made simple factual and scientific errors, or did not have sufficient logic to make a strong case for some or other technology, then I would be unable to further my long view aim. I expect as with many others on the Forum, that aim is to find a system that can be relatively easily replicated and which can deliver enough 'free' power to run a household, or inspire a small community to develop, and then to pass the information on to others to validate and whose opinion carries more weight in the appropriate circles. So far I have not been able to do that but at least I have scratched that itch to find out for my self and the prospect that the future may bring positive results is sufficient to keep me going. Being fully retired now is a big help too!

I'm turning my attention to a pulsed flywheel system of the 'Chas Campbell' type of which there seem to be many variations. There seem to be loads of videos out there showing failed attempts and a few allegedly successful ones and in this technology it seems that the critical element is the intermittent impulses applied to the flywheel, either by some electronic system or by a loose jerky drive belt - there are those pulses again! There is hardly anything on the Energy Science Forum about this type of device but as I develop something I will report it under the 'Mechanical Amplifiers' section.

Are you working on anything at the moment?

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Jules,

................

Are you working on anything at the moment?

Just finishing up a small two stage mechanical oscillator build that my grandson and I started in April of this year. He took a real job, with pay, during the summer so I basically finished it up on my own. He wanted to drive it electrically and have it charge a battery on the output. We had a lot of problems along the way, but I now have it able to slowly charge a battery on the output. Here's a link to this discussion thread. http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=5862 Will be posting more there in the next few days.

[Aaron Murakami]

I'm turning my attention to a pulsed flywheel system of the 'Chas Campbell' type of which there seem to be many variations. There seem to be loads of videos out there showing failed attempts and a few allegedly successful ones and in this technology it seems that the critical element is the intermittent impulses applied to the flywheel, either by some electronic system or by a loose jerky drive belt - there are those pulses again! There is hardly anything on the Energy Science Forum about this type of device but as I develop something I will report it under the 'Mechanical Amplifiers' section.

Are you working on anything at the moment?

I've been corresponding with someone overseas for a while now that has something along those lines. I'll be posting something about it very soon and it may be coming to the next conference. I can't verify the claimed results, but sounds like you'll be able to understand it better than I will anyway.

[JulesP]

Hi Jules,

Just finishing up a small two stage mechanical oscillator build that my grandson and I started in April of this year. He took a real job, with pay, during the summer so I basically finished it up on my own. He wanted to drive it electrically and have it charge a battery on the output. We had a lot of problems along the way, but I now have it able to slowly charge a battery on the output. Here's a link to this discussion thread. http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=5862 Will be posting more there in the next few days.

Sounds great. Preparing the next generation to think that such open systems are the norm