Flynn's Parallel Path

[Liberty]

Hello Liberty and Jake(a et ab et ad vox:quis,quem,quo: ),
                              the devil his/her attourney ?

the solution will be a semi-system:rotative-static !

We should at first introduce a rotative motor/generator concept
to the public,based on conventional apparature(simple physics),
easy to combinate !
A part of the so called OU-effect is the "LEVER" !
The other part is the controlling of the induction current-volume,
there is a difference between "INERTIA"-phase current need and permanent work,this changing process shall get a controle device ,
similar like in IC-engines !

The static-dynamic-transformer/generator is a little more
complicated,but finally it will be KWH-production related cheaper
than motor/generator systems !

Sincerely
            de Lanca

Can you display a picture of what you are talking about?  And perhaps a schematic diagram?  I am not familiar with the device that you are talking about.

Liberty

[tishatang]

Hi Jake and all,

I have looked at this thread only recently.
I have an idea for an electric pulse motor that might be able to self run using magnets only?
I have not seen another motor like my idea, but it uses ideas from other motors.

I don't know if any of you would be interested at this time because some of you have already started work on the Argentina design.

My motor would be really simple to build compared to other motors.  If it is not a self-runner, it would at least be a high torque efficient pulse motor.  I think it could fit inside the front wheel of a bicycle to convert any bike to electric.

I will be 70 years old soon, and I know I will not get around to building my design in the near future.  I will be willing to describe the concept if anyone is interested?

Tishatang

[Liberty]

Please go on.  We always invite new ideas!

[Light]

"I don't know if any of you would be interested at this time...
- Hi, Tishatang.
At least I'm interested. I've posted some of my motors, but they are not selfrunners, and seems to make other designs to do it is idea fix. But to run them ALMOST as selfrunners is not bad  idea. Very interested to see your design and way of thinking. Thank you.

[Drak]

 Jake,

I'm trying to point out that a lot of the physics involved is understood (but ignored here).  The more we know and apply from the known rules, the less "blind alleys" we go down in life.  Many of the ideas in this forum have been tried for hundreds of years, and the reasons they won't work are well known and documented.

  The problem here is documentation. Documents are easily changed. I'm not just in the free energy research, friends that really know me call me "The conspiracy king". I'm not sure how much you have researched on everything, but from what I have, I can tell you right now, you might as well throw your highschool and college history books out the window. God knows what is in the physics books that hasn't been changed. Look at the Da Vinci code ticking alot of people off. Lets look at the billioniares for a second. Lets say I have 20 billion dollars to lose and that is gaurenteed, and I know this. But lets say I can spend 10 billion to save the other 10, good deal in my book (oil companys, etc.). You can't just go on what has been written down. If I had enough money or power I can make people think what I want. You think 2+2=4? Give me the money and power and I will make you BELIEVE 2+2=5 (1984).

  The point I'm trying to make is that I have to throw everything out the window and think on my own. I can't just take someones word, or some documentation that something is so. From my experience and research, alot in this world is not as it seems, and that brings me to free energy.

  Here is where EVERYONE who invents any type of free energy device goes wrong. Please pay attention. This system, this life, this world, is based on money. "The love of money is the root of all evil". Where have I heard that before? Those who invent a device that can free the people of this world (slavery....scarecity = controll = slavery....free energy = freedom) get greedy. And it is NOT just greed, it is fame. PATENTS are BAD. Think about what the purpose of a patent is.... To make money and fame. Money = system = slavery. I GAURANTEE that if I ever discovered a device that can provide free energy to everyone of this world, you can bet your sweet a@@ that I will make a video of how to build it from parts they can make themself or from the hardware store, make a thousand copies and mail it to every free energy researcher i can find. Without profit, and even if it means the death of me, SO BE IT.

It is well understood why this doesn't work, but every generation ignores the wisdom of the past generations that struggled with the same ideas.

  Again, "Wisdom" can be altered

Things don't just work "because they should", or because we want them to.  When things work, they obey a lot of known rules.

  Use the word "rules" carefully

In my estimation, the Flynn patent makes claims that are refuted by simple math, using the numbers from his own work

  Yes I agree with you. I do not see a multiplication. I see an addition. I see his math as wrong

It takes an amount of current to produce 1.6 units of flux to get 1 additional unit of flux in his magnet circuit, when he claims that it takes less electricity to steer the flux that would be required to produce the flux. In my book, it should take an amount of electricity to produce less than 1 unit of flux to "steer" the flux - i.e. the 4th figure should have less than 1 unit of flux to "steer" the flux in the 3rd figure).

  No, he claims it takes exactly the same amount of flux in each electromagnet as each of the perminent magnets. The flux in each electromagnet must match (be equal to) the flux in each perm magnet. In other words 1+1+1+1 = 4. 1+1 electro (steering the perminent) and 1+1 perminent. End result is two electros controlling 2 perms = 4 - loss = 3.whatever. (no multiplication....addition)

I believe that Flynn must be doing some impressive things.  I just don't believe that his public information is telling all of the story.

  Hmmm...I believe he is. Steering a perminent magnent by using the exact amount of energy (minus loss from crappy design of the electromagnet) of the flux of the perminent magnet in an electromagnet should give you the energy you put in plus the permanent magnet. (am I spelling permanent right?) so it would be...electro plus perm = 1 + 1 = 200%.

I am less sure of what will happen when you try to use the circuit in a motor.  I havent given it as much thought.  I think it has more hope than using it as a "MEG".

  Yes I believe so too. Pulsing and timing would be a pain in the a@@. Not to mention all of the saturation, flux and god knows what else flying through that thing.

If there is a problem, it will be that the motion of the rotor will produce eddy currents that "mess up" the "steering" that is supposedly happening.

  I'm not sure there. Does running a piece of metal through a magnetic field produce eddy currents? Because the only thing on the rotor in my motor would be metal. I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know. Supposedly to you, but not to me. I have build it and proved it to my self, and that is all I need for now. I know it works.

I agree that controlling the magnetic flux is "the secret".  I just happen to think that this particular "steering" method breaks down when the magnetic field is "loaded".  By loaded, I mean putting some mechanical load on the circuit (such as rotor torque), or some electrical load on it.

  Maybe, but Boeing is backing him, so I think I'll give it a go too.

I encourage what you are doing with a motor using the principle.  I have offered to help several other people here, and I will make the same offer to you.  If I can help you by doing machining, or any other kind of help that I may be able to undertake in my spare time, I am happy to do so.  I have a large CNC mill that is good for non-ferrous metals and anything softer, such as plastics, wood, etc.  I have a standard Bridgeport mill and a small lathe as well.  My lathe is not much, however.  I can scratch around on it but it is kind of light duty.  I have 3d CAD capability and a lot of miscellaneous equipment at my disposal as well.

  Thank you very much  Maybe you can inprove on my design and give me better ideas. Here is my idea:

  Take 2 circular discs, maybe about 12 inch diamator 1 inch thick of wood. Stick a pole through the center of each disc. Lets call it an axel. Stick them on seperate axels. So now we have two disc's with an axel running through each. Put them side by side and and connect them with a belt or chain, a chain would be better. When one turns the other turns in sync. Stick Flynns device between them with very little gap. Stick magnetic attractive metal every so often on each disc so that when the Flynn device is directed on one end it will pull the magnetic attractive metal that is on the "right" disc towards it. Then as it is closest, sensors will redirect the 1+1+1+1 to the other end of the device and attract the other disc with the magnetic attractive material just comming around and pull it in, etc.... a 3D cad drawing would be nice IF you think this design is reasonable. 
Remember we are adding an anomally in the picture with this design. That anomally is magnets themselves. Science only has theories as to what is going on with them. Strong theories yes, but still only theories. And also remember, I have done the test and I am getting the extra pull from the perm magnents...more torque



Lanca

Hello Drak,
I never wrote that a PM- or EM-magnet is a power-source !

I did not imply that you wrote or said such a thing. You said that controlling the flux is the source for all magnetic motors. I added....Add the force of a Perm magnent and the result is more power from that motor hence.....power from magnenets

  Drak