William Skinner’s Gravity Engine

Apparently, some 75 years on, people are still trying to prove the reality of this perpetual motion machine.
     Posted By: Paul - Sat Aug 16, 2014
     Category: Eccentrics | Hoaxes and Imposters and Imitators | Inventions | 1930s

Every argument I've ever had about perpetual motion has ended when I employed one of my most powerful weapons, MATH!
The proponents of the machines I have seen always forget something called friction.
What is it that makes people forget the rule, For every action there is an EQUAL and opposite reaction. :lol: :coolsmile:
Posted by Tyrusguy on 08/16/14 at 09:23 AM
Miami in 1939? The dude must have been suffering from heat stroke.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 08/16/14 at 10:52 AM
For Sale: Starter motor for perpetual motion machine. Only used once.
Posted by Phideaux on 08/16/14 at 10:43 PM
He had to turn it off at the end of the second clip, which seems to indicate that the power source remains running. That means the machine is not being touted as perpetual motion, rather it seems to be using very little power to produce a large amount of energy. That is my understanding anyway and I am certainly by no means a physicist so tell me if I am wrong please.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 08/17/14 at 07:33 AM
@patty ~~~ You are wrong.
Posted by BMN on 08/17/14 at 11:49 AM
I couldn't resist.
Every perpetual motion or more energy out than put in machine is a hoax.
Posted by BMN on 08/17/14 at 12:08 PM
Gravity renders any earth bound perpetual motion machine moot. If you want free energy the best bet is stealing utilities and hope you don't get caught.
Posted by BrokeDad in Midwest US on 08/17/14 at 07:40 PM
I'm no engineer, so 'splain to me why no one has ever commented on the gear ratios and mechanical advantage involved in (#1) tiny motor w/tiny pulley @ a presumably high RPM belted to (#2) a VERY much larger pulley driving the oscillating shaft that induces (#3) an even greater reduction in the RPM's
of the output shaft. OF COURSE you can squeeze quite tightly on the output. Am I missing something, or has this been taken into account, with additional torque measured above and beyond that gained in the gear ratios involved?
Posted by john on 01/21/15 at 02:08 AM
Maybe I'm wrong but, aren't communication satellites travelling because of gravity ? Including the space station. The space station has small rockets to correct it's course once in a while but, other wise it is a perpetual free fall at the same curve as the Earth's circumference. The free fall is what propels them. Of course that's not perpetual motion, cuz nothing is perpetual, not even the universe. Theoretically, the Moon is a gravity machine. It does the same thing. Gravity makes it go, for 4.2 billion years at 60,000 miles per hour. Round and round it goes. That's not perpetual but, 4.2 billion years is perpetual enough for Me.. Why can't anything else do that ? WTF is with geostationary satellites ? They stay in one spot because of gravity, despite gravity ?.?.? That's why dish TV works, Right ? A Strange thing, Gravity.. I thing the Skinner motor might just possible work.. The only people that say it won't work are the ones who never seen one or never experimented with it. Geostationary gravity is real.. Lagrange Points !! Ask NASA.
Posted by Thomas on 05/05/15 at 08:15 PM
The Skinner machine 1939 has a verticle 'output drive weight' which leans out from a central pivot point. The outward pull of this weight is counterbalanced by a weight attached to what I call a 'transition plate' so that in the non-operational state the whole system is balanced.

At start up the input drive attempts to twist the counterweight out of this balanced position and effectively moves the pivot point for the top of the output shaft which causes the output drive weight to lean in the direction of travel. The long tall weight starts to fall and will continue to fall in that direction as the system rotates.

As long as the counterweight is offset from it non-operational position the effective pivot point is in a position that keeps the weight falling. If output runs too fast or if input slows down the counterweight moves back towards its neutral, non-operational position where the output weight no longer leans into the direction of travel and the system slows and/or shuts down.

The input drives the transition plate in a circle around the effective top pivot point of the output shaft. The drive weight is parallel to and offset from the lightened pivot shaft to improve efficiency.

My Theory chris tidman 23 June 2015
Posted by Christopher Tidman on 06/23/15 at 10:28 PM
This is my second day in a row thinking about trying to extract workable energy from gravity. I came across this skinner machine yesterday. It's intriguing.
I know that theoretically and mathematically it shouldn't work but....

I thought I had the answer to the skinner riddle solved today but I watched the 1939 skinner film a few minutes ago and I saw the machine being started up and reaching working speed almost instantly which dispelled my skepticism somewhat. I theorized that the machine is actually a flywheel even though it doesn't look like one and it actually does multiply force but not overall power output. Ie. it stores energy built up from a small power source over a long period of time and releases a large amount of energy in a small period of time.
But the instantaneous startup of the machine from a stopped position leaves my theory debunked. I'm going to have a look at some of the maths of this machine and maybe build a simple copy of it, if the maths doesn't put me off.
Posted by Seamus O'Halloran on 07/31/15 at 04:52 PM
Thomas - the Moon and any orbiting satellites are not "gravity powered" - they are in free fall but their velocity relative to the surface of the Earth is enough to keep them in a stable orbit. They are not truly perpetual but have a very low rate of energy loss. No power inputs to the system - the balance with our moon is not perfect and the Moon is actually slowly receding away - an inch or so a year.

To put something in orbit means it has to be going fast enough that it does not fall to Earth via gravity. Too fast and it flies away. Too slow and it crashes to Earth. But under no circumstances is it "gravity powered".
Posted by B-Rad on 07/31/15 at 06:03 PM
I know according to science this should not work. However the biggest problem is the dogmatic adherence to theory that is hundreds of years old, to explain why it can't work.
Today we can fake it, but in 1939?
Posted by bill a on 09/15/15 at 01:45 PM
I constructed a model and have made a terrible video showing my version.

Remove the weight and the output gets no energy from the input because the two join at a bearing which allows the drive axle (output) to rotate, or not. Add the weight and the input energy required to rotate the top of axle in a circle does not increase much but the weight keeps the sloping output axle in same disposition which amounts to twisting the output to match the input. I will be building a working model with two sloping axles turning the same output pulley and running at speed which will increase the effect of the weight. The connecting bearing and the fully articulated u joints were required to demonstrate the way it works but not necessary in the working model. Simple hinges instead of u joints will be used to make alignment of parts easier and compensate for worn bearings.
Posted by chris tidman on 09/16/15 at 02:07 PM
I think You are on right track, building and testing a model. All the theory and computer sims will tell you it can't work. That's the difference between theoretical and practical physics. The only way to prove a theory is to build it. Your model is excellent and video is very good. Your theory of the hinge is correct, most especially on the output, where the hinge carries the load of the weight. There was another invention called the Mann Prime mover, that in my opinion demonstrates a similar action. It is a little difficult to see but it did work on the same principal. Avoid Aron M. I think He is disseminating misinformation, His reason is not clear? You are on the right track, keep up the good work. My research is going well and I see a bright future, for free energy. Keeping it on the down low, Bill
Posted by bill a on 09/17/15 at 01:10 AM
Sir please explain me Williams skinnier gravity machine truth or fake

Posted by Bhagawat bhutekar on 07/02/17 at 01:38 AM
:roll: It is true until someone proves it wrong. Because a bunch of wannabe scientists say it is a fake does not make it so. no one as of yet has be able to prove it wrong or right. The more we think we know, the greater the unknown. Now it is all about the money. What motivates You?
Posted by Bill a on 07/02/17 at 12:13 PM
Sir some big replica shows on YouTube this is fake or truth .
Can I try or not

Posted by bhagawat bhutekar on 07/02/17 at 01:55 PM
Sir please reply any on can I make make this machine because this truth then ok otherwise lost by time please suggest any one.
Posted by Bhagawat bhutekar on 07/10/17 at 08:55 PM
I've studied this gravity engine theory for a couple years. And I believe it can be done using levers as axils and two different ramps. One for the wheels going downward, over steps, while the weight is multiplied and the upward ramp is carrying a sled with the same axil that is divided. Thus, you have a system that picks weight up to go downhill and instantly drops its weight so it can be lifted to the multiplied wheeled down ramp. It would be like a windmill but turned by the multiplied force of gravity... the numbers make sense.
Posted by bruce on 12/27/17 at 05:53 PM
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.