Flynn's Parallel Path

[Drak]

Jake,

Just remember - you have to get away from that extra force to produce a net torque!

  What exactly do you mean? Remember by reversing the polarity of the flynn device there is no longer any pull (0 pull) from the device on that end. The metal on the "right" rotor will just coast on by while the "left" rotor's metal will just be comming into view. Reversing the polarity back and forth causes the pull from 4 magnents (2E and 2P) to go from one end to the other. I'm not sure if that is what you are talking about.

Drak

[jake]

What I mean is, in a "normal" motor, it requires no power to "let go" of a pole.  Anything using the Flynn design must be powered to pull, and powered to let go.  This means that you are giving up some of the benefit of the extra pull by having to energise to get the pole to release.

Your alternating scheme makes the best of the situation, but it only allows you to have one "pole" or whatever you want to call it.  Normally one would want poles clear around the rotor - for obvious reasons.

I wouldn't be discouraged about this, however.  Just pointing out that what benefits you in one way hurts you in another way.  In spite of what you may think from my posts, I do believe some interesting things are going to come from these type of designs.  I intend to really study what is out there before I try anything myself.  I think there are a lot of potholes we can avoid by looking at what has been done.  There are a lot of designs out there to glean from.  I think the past efforts, whether successful or failed, are worth studying before cutting metal.

[Drak]

Jake,

Your alternating scheme makes the best of the situation, but it only allows you to have one "pole" or whatever you want to call it.  Normally one would want poles clear around the rotor - for obvious reasons.

  That is the purpose of tying (with a chain) the two rotors together. They will be just a little out of sync but always just a little out of sync. So when the polarity is reversed and the pull is switched to the other side of the device that rotors magneticly attractive metal will just be comming around into the path of the flux, while the other side is free to go. Back and forth. You would have say 8 pieces of metal (depending on size of rotor) on one rotor and 8 on the other. The device would always be on, but it would always be pulling one rotor or the other, both linked by chain.

Drak

[Drak]

Jake,

Normally one would want poles clear around the rotor - for obvious reasons.

  The more poles you add, the more energy you need to power those poles, and reversing the device (pole) would then be waste of energy because there would be nothing on the back side of each pole to use this flux to power the system. 

[jake]

Send in a translator!

All machines of induction actuelles(dynamos, alternators, transformers, reels of Ruhmkorff, etc.)sont considerees like simple transformers of the energie(travail in heat, electricity, low tension in high voltage, etc, and conversely.) In reality, the presente decouverte demontre that inductive flow and induced flow are two forms opposees (!!!) of energy (one centrifuges, the other centripete) and that the induction coil included/understood well is not a simple transformer, but a marvellous multiplier of energy. The power remarkable of etincelle of rupture confirms this theorie fully and proves that flow induit(centripede) is increasingly energique than inductive flow (centrifugal)." Recitation-end!

Babblefish