Skinner

[webby2]

A few observations that I don't see much about.

First is that the film does not show much vibration of the device. 

I would expect with the number of masses that are spinning off center that there would be a fair amount of vibration at least enough so that the brace cables should show some oscillations or at least the power cord coming down from the ceiling would be moving.

Those of us who have built a test-bed should know just how rigid the frame needs to be to hold against those forces.

The other thing is in the behavior of the drive belts going to and or coming from the main distribution shaft up at the ceiling.

The ones driving the tools seem to behave as I would expect when under a constant load, however, the one going to the device behaves to me more like power going into and back out of the device,,, the belt looks like it is slapping.

In one of the still pictures of the window, on the floor it looks like there are some weights that could easily be inside a larger cover pipe that itself may not be very heavy and so the mass distribution of the device may not be what we think.

[webby2]

I watched another attempted replication of the Skinner device and was disappointed at the test-bed.

First, it was not the device that was tested and yet it was concluded that the device claims were debunked.

If I have a mass sitting on that lower arm that is in a downward position and I activate the system by spinning it up that mass is going to lift upwards via whatever you wish to label the force, gyroscopic, CP, CF or whatever.  That direction of force transfer is going to take the lower shaft and force it away from vertical, it is going to PUSH that shaft away and that is the wrong direction of force.  This test setup has been tried many times and while the system is moving slowly the mass being lifted by an external means applied to the lower shaft will want to fall and cause rotation,, while moving slowly.

If you use a smaller mass and mount it on its own shaft on the end of the lever you can still do this, so a small mass on a post attached to the end of the lower arm raised up some distance from the lever.  Activate the system by spinning it up and this time the ???force is going to try and force the small mass away from the center of rotation which then applies a force down on the lower lever it is mounted on, and that tries then to PULL the shaft away from vertical.  You now have 2 forces acting on the mass with both of them trying to make the mass move down and PULL the shaft away from vertical.

Why would someone want to use a bent driveshaft to connect things together?  Worse yet why would they also use ball joints on the driveshaft?  There is no way that shaft can pass a torque, you can try and stop that shaft from spinning or try to spin it up and no torque is transferred.

If then for a moment you consider a deconstructed swash plate, more precisely a 3 plate swash plate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate
If you think this through you might start to think that the lower system and upper system combined together has a feedback mechanism that forces the upper arm to rotate.

The middle plate is not in alignment and that mass on that middle arm\plate is going to do what when it is spun up, which way is that force flowing?

My test-bed had all of these relationships being a rather sensitive balance of forces, interactions and reactions.  I could for a moment achieve an interesting result but it was very easy to loose the sync and over spin the system or take to much out or not enough,, it was very temperamental and I did not have the patience to try and work it all through.

I concluded that the system would not be practical as it was shown and that as it was shown it was not setup to actually function as described.

This is just my opinion of course.