Parallel Path Magnet Motor

[scianto]

Has nobody already tried this ?

There are some replications on youtube, especially the Italian ones.

I fajnie, że wreszcie jakaÅ› porzÄ...dna polska robota

Jedna z wielu, różni się tym, że opublikowana. Też coś robisz w tym kierunku?

[scianto]

It seems your motor is 81% efficient.

Doing several hundred measurements I got some with efficiency 82 to 83% in this setup. It was quite difficult to find the sweet spots.
I am going to make a spreadsheet with graphs to show some characteristics of this setup.

Thanks for suggestions about minimizing losses. I will do what I can.

[tbird]

i have been trying to sort out how this unit was constructed.  since a particular patent wasn't stated as the one used in construction, i've had to read about each that i could find (what a job!!).

patrick kelly's e-book (download here http://www.free-energy-info.com/PJKBook.html) has 2 of flynn's patents in it.  patent 6246561 (june 2001) and patent 5455474 (oct 1995).  a third, patent 6342746 (jan 2002) is linked here...

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Flynn_Parallel_Path_motor

this is Mike Schukel's replication which claims ...

The motor has 3.5 times more output power relative to input, compared to a conventional motor, as well as being compact, high torque, all while operating at ambient temperatures.

i have a problem with fppp being effective when used this way.  Mike also gives a "Flynn Parallel Path principle project."  here...

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:FPPP:Assembly

in here he says..

"One thing to note: The end bar on the active side of the devcice must be in place or the parallel path effect will not take place. In other words if a flux path is not provided on the active side of the device when you apply power. You will not see the flux focus to one side. So make sure you have both end bars in place when you test the device. "

this makes me think the starting force is no more than the electromagnet would have by itself.  so no benefit until it's time to release (and you have to use power to do this), then it's too late.  i could be wrong.

another thing that bothers me is for this to be efficient, you should have enough metal to keep the flux from saturating and spilling out.  without this, won't the distance of attraction be limited?  thus the reason for the above comment ("..must be in place..") by mike.

patent 5455474 (oct 1995) on the other hand uses magnets on the stator and rotor with coils on top of the stator magnets to modify the fields.   kelly does a good job of explaining this unit.

in kelly's e-book where he covers patent 6246561 (pages a-338 to a-410), more than 1 design motor is covered.  lots of info here.

after all this, i still have to ask, what design did you use?

tom

[scianto]

A lot of work, thank you for posting this informations here.

I also did study it for a few hours, read the patents and watch the films on youtube before experimenting. As always, theory is one way and practical tests not always give expected results.

after all this, i still have to ask, what design did you use?

I am using the 6 pole design.
Here:
http://servilo.website.pl/laboratorio/esploroj/rownolegle_strumienie/SRSM2/
are construction details and some films from the tests.

[Ted Ewert]

..."One thing to note: The end bar on the active side of the devcice must be in place or the parallel path effect will not take place. In other words if a flux path is not provided on the active side of the device when you apply power. You will not see the flux focus to one side. So make sure you have both end bars in place when you test the device. "

this makes me think the starting force is no more than the electromagnet would have by itself.  so no benefit until it's time to release (and you have to use power to do this), then it's too late.  i could be wrong.

What was quoted is true, but only for establishing a new flux path. The flux can be redirected in a motor across the gap, but only for as long as the coils are active. After that the flux reverts back to whichever pathway offers the least reluctance.
With the size and number of magnets this motor has it should be way over 100% efficient. 81% is typical for a regular motor of that size. The only conclusion one can derive is that the magnets are not being utilized in this design. I've seen the same thing in other Flynn motors too.
This motor is beautifully constructed. There is nothing wrong with the materials either. In theory it should perform as predicted; it should be way over unity, but it isn't. Why?
Because you can't switch flux from a permanent magnet instantly through a coil. There is a lag time, and if you don't wait through the lag no flux gets switched. IMHO, the Flynn motor is switching way too fast for the PM flux to do any work.
This could be tested quite "easily" by removing the magnets and replacing them with steel inserts. If the same efficiency level is observed, then you know the magnets are not being utilized.
This is a beautiful motor but lets be honest, 81% just doesn't cut it. We should be seeing 200 to 400%. We need to figure out how to efficiently switch and utilize the magnets, or this is all for nothing.
I'm actively working on this very problem and will gladly share whatever results I find.

Cheers,

Ted