Flynn's Parallel Path

[Elvis Oswald]

I absolutely will build it.  But we are discussing your math... and your math is wrong.  And since this is a discussion of some importance in a public forum... I refuse to leave the faulty math in place.

When you were calculating, you used an input power that created 1.58 units of flux for the parallel path setup... and then you used input power that generates 3.2 units of flux in the second example.  So your answer is wrong because you are using two different inputs.

I would appreciate a correction.  But if you want to leave such an error in your post... that's fine as well.  But I will correct you for everyone else, otherwise people would see your conclusion and assume it's right.

So to others discussing parallel path - please note that Jake's conclusion is incorrect.  But it is easily corrected.

In the first calculation he uses the parallel path setup and uses the correct input power.  The result shows that output is 3.0 units from an input equal to 1.58 units.

The second calculation is where his error occurs.  Instead of using the same power in... he uses power equal to 3.2 units.
If he had used 1.58 units - like he did in the first equation, and like he should have... then the output would be 1.58.

So, after correcting for the error... we see that by Jake's calculations, a pp transformer would have a net gain in flux in the core over a standard transformer.

Will that transfer directly to more current in the secondary?

[jake]

Elvis,

I'm sorry I can't explain this in a way you understand, but I assure you my math is correct.  The 3.2 units is 1.6 plus 1.6.  To create a transformer you are going to have to reverse the polarity of the current to the coil.  The reveral of polarity causes the flux to completely reverse if the magnets are not in the circuit.  With the magnets in the circuit, the flux at the ends (where the output coils would be in the transformer) does not reverse directions when the electrical input to the coils is reversed.  It drops to zero.

When you have the magnets in the circuit and you apply the current one direction you are going to get 3 units of flux at the bottom and 0 units of flux at the top.  When you reverse the current to the coils (you will have to do this to use the device as a transformer) you will have 3 units of flux at the top and 0 units of flux at the bottom.  This gives you a Difference of 3 units of flux

Now take the magnets out of the circuit (like the 4th diagram in the flynn experiment.  You have 1.6 units of flux in the bottom and 1.6 units of flux in the top with current applied.  Now when you reverse the polarity, you have -1.6 (1.6 units in the opposite direction) units of flux at the top and at the bottom.  This gives you a Difference of 3.2 units of flux (to be exact, 1.58*2= 3.16).

Now, if you say you don't want to reverse the current in the circuit you will still have a similar problem.  You could just "pulse" the input to the coils.  What happens then is you have a change from 2 units of flux to 3 units of flux with the magnets in the circuit for a total difference of 1 unit of flux.  Taking the magnets out and pulsing the coils will give you a change from 0 to 1.6 for a total change of 1.6 units of flux.

3845 grams od force (according to flynns test page) alternating , compared to the no magnet conventional curcuit  which gives  1091 grams.

This is absolutely wrong.  The force will go from 3845 to 0 to 3845 to 0, etc.  (The top coil has zero force on it - "the Flynn effect")  Thus when the current is reversed the bottom coil will have 0 force.

The other problem you are having is not respecting the relationship of force to flux (that Flynn spells out).  Force is proportional to the square of the flux.  A transformer functions based upon the rate of change of flux through the coils.  You can't use flux and force interchangably.  Twice the force doesn't mean twice the flux, so it doesn't mean a transformer will put out twice the voltage.

[acp]

Yes, Jake's calculations make sense.

At any rate this modification sounds awfully similar to the MEG, which doesn't work anyway.....

[dutchy1966]

Hello all,

I've been following these discussions here from the sideline. The flynn effect has been proven already and has recently been bought by Boeing.
The reason why most people cant get the transformer/meg type device to work is because some important information is missing from the patent. (probably left out on purpose!). This concerns the serial switching of the control coil and the output coil. Why this is neccessary? Because else the current supplied to the control coil would simply leak away in the output coil and no flynn/overunity effect would appear at all.
Read the attachmant i've include, it explains it all.

regards,

Dutchy

[Drak]

  I have recently replicated the device. It does work. Using two "C" batteries, "I" laminents from a transformer, 22 guage wire, and four of the rectangle magnets from radio shack (not the big rectangle magnets, but the ones with the hole in center of them). Two magnets on one end and two on the other. After wiring accordingly it works as specified. The bar falls off of one end while the force on the other is considerably stronger. I haven't done weight tests yet, but by judgment from the feel of the pull it is pretty outstanding.

  When the flux is at one end while the device is on, there does not need to be a bar at the nonflux end as stated on one of the other sites for it to work. On the non flux end there is NO FORCE whatsoever. With out the magnets in place both ends have a magnetic pull, but nothing close the the pull on the directed path with the magnets in place and the device switched on.
 
  I just finished building the device at the beginning of the week. I do not have any weights to measure the pull with so I think I will use water as weight to mesure with. My Coils are not the best and I didn't use the same magnets, laminent size, or gauge coil as stated in the demo, but it worked anyways. I'm currently in the process of borrowing a camcorder, or at least a digital camera with motion if anyone is interest in seeing it.

  Oh yes, its not a good thing to try and use neomagnets to replicate this because of the saturation point of the laminets (so I read). Heh, I couldn't sleep that first night after building it, my mind was racing too much. Any how, out for now.

Drak