Overunity.com Archives

If you want an electromagnetic gate here it is!
Not only that, it gives 3.45 times more flux than supplied by the current!!!

You can build these.
Copy the files, pass the word and pray for Joe!

There are a lot more links, but these are some of the best:

Article:Joe Flynn's Parallel Path Magnetic Technology -- by Tim Harwood
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Joe_Flynn%27s_Parallel_Path_Magnetic_Technology_--_by_Tim_Harwood

Build a Proof-of-Concept Flynn Parallel Path Magnet Device
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Flynn_Parallel_Path_principle_device

Build a Flynn Parallel Path Magnet Technology Motor -- Difficult Version
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/PESWiki:Flynn_Parallel_Path_motor

Directory:FPPMT:Paul Noel
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:FPPMT:Paul_Noel

How Parallel Path Gets Over Unity
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/How_Parallel_Path_Gets_Over_Unity/

Flynn Research
http://www.flynnresearch.net/parallel_path_magnetics_vs__similar_devices_2.htm

Hmm,
has the Flynn device really proven to be overunity also
in the dynamic case, that means during running the motor ?

Okay, in the static case it amplifies the magnetic forces,
but in the dynamic case there must be coils energized and
de-energized in the cycles.. this also needs energy and
I wonder what the real COP of a Flynn rotating motor is ?
Regards, Stefan.

If we use this idea to move magnetic field to unbalance?

excuse my english

I haven't done any testing but, from what I've read, it's not amplifying anything, rather it's controlling the magnet's field. So instead of having it spread on both sides of the setup, it relocates them to one side. I'm not saying this is not useful, I strongly believe that controlling the magnet's flows is extremely useful. If the sum of all the magnetic fields on both sides is the same before than after the manipulation, taking into account the contribution by the coil, then there wasn't an amplification. Again, this is from what a person with little experience like me has understood, so please trash me if I'm mistaken.

I have just read Flynn's STAIF paper on work in conjunction with Boeing. Ii is  very guarded and conservative in the way the data is presented, But when it talks about the generator they have built  it talks of it having EXTRAORDNARY ccpabilities. I have never seen a description of this kind in a paper before. I reckon they have a hot item here and are trying to keep it low key. oriolesys

I have noticed that at least one of Flynn's earlier patents relates to a Torbayish style  over unity motor. I wonder if anyone has looked at this in any detail - us patent 5753990

The Flynn thing is very interesting at minimum.  It made the cover of a "trade rag" recently.

As hartiberlin pointed out, I suspect there will be issues that arise when things start to rotate.  It can be difficult to predict and understand what is going on when a bunch of conductive mass starts to intersect the flux paths.  I can assure you that currents are being generated in there somewhere.

If, as Username_1 states, the real cop is <87%, Flynn doesn't even have a very good motor at this point.

I read somewhere that he is using steel rotors (no magnets in the rotor).  This seems a little odd to me.  I'm sure that is not where you would start, so I am guessing that experimentation with magnetic rotors uncovered problems, which drove him to steel rotors.  This has to be a compromise, in my opinion.  No "normal" motor utilizes a rotor that is not somehow magnetized, whether it be directly magnetized or induced.

I suspect that even though he can almost quadruple the force with some electrical input, you have the problem of requiring electric input to make the magnet "let go" when you want it to as well.  This automatically requires electrical input to the coil at a higher duty cycle (energise one way to quadruple the force, energise the other way to "let go").  In a normal motor, the electricity is effectively "turned off" to make the proper coils "let go" at the proper point in the rotation, thus it is "free" to let go.  In the Flynn design, it looks like there is a cost to "let go" as well as a cost to amplify.

I think JackH's system makes a little more sense to me.  From what he has described, he has created a "valve" that only requires pulses of current.  I don't see how the Flynn thing could work with pulses only.  Maybe I am missing something though.  The rotary example of the Flynn principle is a little confusing to me.  The "H" looking thing that he uses to demonstrate the force amplification is fairly straight forward (and interesting).  But, it is clear that it would require just as much current to let go as it does to quadruple the force.

I also wonder what happens when you take away the bar across the top and get rid of that flux path.  I am a little confused about whether that bar needs to be there or not, and what happens if it is not.

At minimum, the Flynn device exposes some interesting things.  I would describe what is going on as "coercing" the flux.  The concept of coercing magnetic flux in the way Flynn is doing it is interesting to me.  The question becomes, is there a way to do it with a low enough energy input to make it useful, and do dynamic conditions (motor rotation) cause problems that don't allow it to be useful in motors.

There are also indications that very strong magnets (Nib type, for example) are "too strong" to easily apply to the Flynn concept.  ??? What is that all about?  You have to use stone age magnets to make the thing work???

It is also interesting that what Flynn is doing is not really new, although he appears to be getting patents on "his" ideas.  The old space shoes appear to be the same principle that Flynn is patenting.

The space shoes used the same principle of energising a coil to cause the permanent magnets to release by shunting, or coercing the flux path away from the holding point on the shoes.

see:
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm (http://www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm)

A quote from the article:

R. J. Radus, "Permanent Magnet Flux Transfer Principle," Internal Westinghouse paper, date unknown; ______  "Permanent-Magnet Circuit using a 'Flux-Transfer' principle," Engineers' Digest, date unknown (July 1963???), p. 86.



Looks like fundamentally the same principle "Flux transfer" - referred to ca 1963!

Tell me you can't see the similarity between the "flux switching" device and Flynns device?

"Tell me you can't see the similarity between the "flux switching" device and Flynns device?".
- There's a difference. In Jack's motor rotor  consists of coils, and stator's field switches somehow by electromagnet. In Flynn's idea coil switches the flux of stator, and rotor - permanent magnet.

I wasn't comparing Jack's motor to the flynn device.  I was comparing the space shoes in the link in my last post to the flynn device.

If you follow the link, and look at the "flux switching" device shown in the article, it is fundamentally (exactly) the flynn device.

"flux switching" device shown in the article, it is fundamentally (exactly) the flynn device.
- Yes Jake, sorry, the Jacks motor sits in mind tight. Seems this "flux switching" is a MEG principle, anyway different from Flynn's. But of course needa modulate the magnetic field in certain way to get unbalanced forces.

Being somewhat new to this, I don't know what "MEG" means.  What is it?

This is only true in the static case.
If you have a running rotor the system is dynamic and
then the Lentz law comes into play...things then change !

What is very interesting is that Figure 7 in Flynn's STAIF paper shows motor efficiencies quite a bit above 100 per cent at low torque. Sadly I do not have the necessary rights to post the paper itself.

Replicated experiments seem to show an increase in magnetic force.  This will make a strong motor, but the implications for transforming power is greater in my mind.  From the first link it seemed like a transformer would double the power applied to the first circuit if setup like this.
You could use half to power the device once started... and since a device of reasonable size would probably use low voltage to manifest the parallel path... you'd have to come up with a way to store that energy.
And the secondary might add something to the whole resonance equation that makes it not work...

But - you might set it in motion with one magnet approaching a coil.  Maybe like the Marks device??  I'd hate to admit that horse wasn't really dead... ;)

QuoteNow, does the flynn switch require more power when the motor is under load?
Or is the power supplied to it constant, unchanging regardless of motor load?

Username_1,

Flynn type designs purportedly do not exhibit the typical Torque = K*I relationship that a typical motor does.

The motor current is said to increase slightly as the motor first starts to load up, but quickly flattens out.

The motors are said to run extremely cool (evidence of the touted "high efficiency"), and are supposedly virtually impossible to "burn up", unless you inadvertantly keep a coil energized when the motor is not running.

The coils on Flynn motors supposedly exhibit a "kick" back from the coils that gets more pronounced as the motors load up.

It seems like Flynn stuff is producing some very interesting test results, and is being reproduced by others.

Interestingly, I don't think Flynn ever touted his motor to be "overunity".  He just sold it as being very efficient and let it speak for itself.

I don't think anyone says that the Flynn technology is producing more output power than the electrical power it takes to run it. (it may be, but I don't think they are saying that openly)

I don't have the STAIF document yet, but I also heard that it showed test results that were "overunity" in a portion of the operating curve.

I think the Flynn strategy was clever - keep the claims modest and let the hardware do the talking.

I obviously didn't make myself clear in the earlier post.   :-\

In regards to the Flynn tech... I was not talking about motors.

You are all talking about running a generator with the motor... and that may or may not yield overunity... but that's not the best way to use Flynn tech to acheive overuntiy.  With all due respect, doing it like that is like going around your ankles to wipe you ass. ;)

I'm talking about a transformer designed to multiply power.  No moving parts - just a transformer.

Using the parallel path setup, the magnetic force is amplified, and so then should be the current induced in a secondary coil.  From the looks of the test I saw... that force should be just under 2x.

So all that is to be done is to wire it up to run itself.  And this is where the questions come in... and what I was trying to suggest discussing in my previous post...

To start... I have to correct something someone said - Input power does matter.  The parallel path only manifests in a small window of voltage.  So, to power itself, the input power has to remain steady.
But you wouldn't want a string of 100 of these things to step up from some small amount of power... so you have to come up with something to collect the power.

Maybe connect one to something like the voltage multiplier on a microwave.  You might be able to make a small unit that you could start off by placing a magnet on the side.

Just a note on the '3.47 times the force'  - compared to what?? 

I'd prefer to reference the difference between the setup with and without the parallel path effect... and that would be about 2 times.
The setup with the magnets - but without the coils lifts 'X', the electromagnet lifts 'Y' - by adding the coils to the setup with the magnets... you would expect to lift X+Y... but it actually lifts X+Y+Y.  It's actually pretty close to doubling the force of the current applied.

I would consider the lifting of the weights to be a measurement of force.  But even so - there is an increase that would equate to an increase in power to a secondary circuit.
And of course the power in would have to remain the same.

If you take the simple experiment (from one of those links) - the one with the steel straps and the strapping tape - and use an A/C current (of the voltage*amps that correspond to the pp effect) you should notice an increase in power.  I'd wire the two secondaries together, series... checking polarity twice... and you should see more power out than in.

If that works... maybe a HF A/C input would help multiply these small voltages faster?  Maybe increase the frequency with load?

If you analyze the "Simple Magnetic Force Multiplication Experiment", using the principles of magnetism spelled out by Flynn, the results of the experiment are not surprising or astounding.

The formula for force in magnetisim (per the Flynn site, and presumably common accepted knowledge) dictates that the attractive force increases with the square of the flux.

Now if we look at the forces in the experiment and relate flux values to them we get the following:

Lets assume 421 grams = 1 unit flux
If we add another unit of flux (one more permanent magnet), per the above formula, we should expect exactly 4 times the lifting force (2 times 2, or 2 squared) which would be 1684 grams.

The actual experiment result was 1721 grams, which would indicate that the second magnet was just slightly stronger than the first magnet.

So far, what has happened is exactly what would be expeced.  We doubled the flux, and quadrupled the force.  If there is anything telling at this point, it is that 100% of the flux from the top magnet is acting on the bar across the bottom. (without any "steering")

Now, to go from the 1721 grams of force in the second diagram to the 3845 grams in the third figure would require:
(3845/1721)^0.5 = 1.494 times the flux that we have in the second diagram.

In the second diagram (1721 grams) 2.02 units flux are present: (1721/421)^0.5=2.02

This means that the third diagram would have 2.02 * 1.49 units of flux, which equals 3.02 units of flux.  Can also be computed as a ratio of diagram 1: (3845/421)^0.5 = 3.02 as a back check on the figure.

Since we have 2.02 units of flux in the second diagram, and 3.02 in the third diagram, we should have to add 1 unit of flux to arrive at the 3.02 units of flux that would be required to give us the 3845 grams of lift.

Everyone follow me so far?

This means that the electric windings are adding exactly the equivalent of 1 unit of flux to the system, which would be expected to give the zero force at the top, effectively "switching off" the top magnet, right?

Now we go to the last figure.  This figure shows that we are applying electrical current that would produce 1091 grams of force, which would require (1049/421)^0.5 = 1.58 units of flux.

What all this adds up to is we are applying electrical current to the circuit that equates to 1.58 units of flux, as proven by the right diagram in the experiment.  The net gain we are getting from applying current that should produce 1.58 units of flux is only 1.0 units of flux in the third diagram.

The upshot is, we are applying enough current to the circuit to expect a much larger lifting force that we actually get.  If the 1.58 units of flux being generated in the circuit on the left were added to the 2 units of flux in the second circuit, we should see 3.58 units of flux, or 5396 grams of force in diagram 3.

If we take the information from this experiment and analyze what would happen if we attempted to use it to make a "super transformer", we can also predict what would happen.

There is no arguing that we have fundamentally 3 uints of flux in diagram 3, with the current applied.  By putting a bar across the top we can prove that there is no flux available at the top of the circuit.  (see Flynn documents showing zero force on the top bar).  Now, if we reversed the polarity, we would have 3 units of flux at the top, and 0 at the bottom.

If we put a bar across each end, with a coil around each bar, can now create a current in the coils, which is based upon the change in flux passing through the coils.  Each coil will oscillate between 0 units of flux and 3 units of flux as we alternate the current to the coils.  This gives us a delta of 3 units of flux in each coil, by applying electricity that would create 1.6 units of flux.

Now lets take the magnets out of the circuit.  We now have figure 4, but add the coils at each end of the circuit.  This circuit differs in that the magnetic flux will completely reverse as we alternate the current to the input coils.  Since it alternates (because the permanent magnets are not there to "redirect" the flux), we will oscillate from +1.6 units of flux to -1.6 units of flux (complete flux reversal at both ends).  This means that the coils will see a delta of 3.2 units of flux without the magnets in the circuit.

What this means is the permanent magnets actually make the transformer less effective by the ratio of 3.2 to 3.0, or about 93.5 percent.

Thus, I predict that if someone makes the circuit shown and adds the coils at each end and makes it so that it can have the magnets put in and taken out, that the transformer would work about 6.5% better by leaving the magnets out.

If you look at what has to happen in the circuit, all of the results make sense.  To get from 2 units of flux to 3 units of flux requires that the electric coils drive 1 unit of extra flux through the top permanent magnet to get it around to the bottom of the circuit.  Since the magnet is already providing 1 unit of flux, this effectively doubles the flux that must pass through the upper magnet.  This probably explains why they warn that Nib magnets are not good for this experiment.

I'm not saying all this to imply that the Flynn circuit is useless, but to point out that it is probably not magic.  Upon analysis the circuit works just the way it should.

The power to generate 1.6 units of flux will only produce 1.6 units... that's why it's called "the power to generate 1.6 units of flux.  ;)  That's the first thing you're missing.  In a regular transformer... with equal windings on both coils.... power out = power in (best case)
So your estimate of power out of a regular transformer is wrong.

If you are correct on the math about the transformer with pp... then the power out should be almost double.  And since that jives with my abstract calculations, I would say that we are looking at doubling power with a simple transformer.

Elvis,

My math says that if you get 1.0 without the magnets, you will get 0.93 with the magnets, so my math doesn't jive with your abstract calculations.

I encourage you to build the device and test it.

The first thing you are missing is that the 1.6 units of flux completely reverses when you reverse the polarity on the input coils when the magnets are not in the circuit.  This gives a change of 3.2 units when the magnets are not present (+1.6 - (-)1.6 = 3.2) ;)  With the magnets in the circuit, the flux does not reverse through the secondary coils when you reverse the polarity of the input coils.  It simply varies from 0 to 3.0 for a change of 3.0.  This is a diminishing return by having the magnets present in the circuit.  (The transformer output voltage is proportional to the flux change through the output coils)

What you are still missing is that - IF you use your example, and the output is 3.2... then you applying enough power to provide 3.2...

So stick the 3.2 into your first calculation and see how it changes.  Because the input is the same setups... and the input is "enough power to generate 3.2"  And that's not what you used in your first example.  You used enough power to generate 1.6.
You should have said it was +.8 and -.8 to equal 1.6

Elvis,

Respectfully, build it and prove it to yourself.

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?

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.

Quote3845 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.

Yes, Jake's calculations make sense.

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

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

  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

Good work Drak. :)

I've been studying the Asaoka patent 5,926,083 with interest.

I find it noteworthy that the patent says: "... the inventor considers it posible to make Wp/Win2 > 1."  (claims overunity is possible).

Since the inventor went to all the trouble of constructing the test circuit, etc., why didn't the inventor demonstrate Wp/Win2 > 1?

My gut tells me this patent just doesn't work when you apply a load to the output.

Hi,

I think the first step in "checking" the inventor claims would be to test the permanent and electromagnet combination if it really reduces the input power of the electromagnet to 1/40 as he claimed to find.
(See Figs 1 and 2 and the text in Asaoka patent). If it can be approached it will prove that a permanent magnet's flux can "amplify"  the flux of an electromagnet significantly and that the inventor is (partly at least) correct in his statements! The 1/40 reduction is a significant claim/achievement in itself and it can be checked.

The next step would be to find a setup (any setup, not only that of the patent) in which this amount of input power reduction could be utilized i.e. make use of the combination of EM-PM magnets: imagine a setup that initially based on electromagnets and needs a certain input power to complete a certain task. Now you could try to combine those electromagnets with permanent magnets to achive a reduction in the input power and still perform the same task.
For instance have a look at Paul Noel's following page at peswiki:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:FPPMT:Paul_Noel and scroll down to "Parallel Path Backdraft ". There Paul suggests inserting a PP setup INTO another PP setup and he says about at least 4:1 gain. What did he draw? He combined an EM-PM setup with another EM-PM setup.

I do not know yet if the full setups or their variants shown in the Asaoka patent is capable of  giving Wp/Win2 > 1 or not.

I think if the inventor had demonstrated in the patent any overunity he would not have been granted the US Patent because of the perpetual motion claim.

Regards
Gyula

I'm not sure what direction this is heading in at this point.

Clearly Asaoka (from information presented in his patent) constructed the device that he patented.  He claims in the patent that overunity is possible.  He had the device constructed already, and proved that it took 1/40th of the power to do whatever, and yet he didn't go on to show the end result of this feat.

How can the patent be for a generator if the thing won't generate.  This device is a transformer.  It isn't "generating" anything until it is overunity.

  Ok, I've done the weight test using water. Without the magnets in place using the traditional horseshoe electromagnet, I kept filling the container full of water untill it broke away. I kept removing and adding water to narrow down the close to exact amount the traditional electromagnet would hold. Then I put the magnets in place and directed the path. It did not break away using the same amount of water that was in there from before (using just the electromagnet). I had to fill up the container all the way and almost overfilled it to get it to break away.
 
  It seems to me all that is going on here is just adding up the electromagnets and permanent magnets and focusing them all in one direction. The extra water that I added (to get it to break away from the FPP) seemed to be just what would be needed to break away from just the total of the permanent magnets I used. The fact that all of that force (combined E and P magnets) can be directed in one direction and then instantaniously switched to the other end leaving no force at the oppisite end is enough to get me to build a motor out of it. So to me the overunity here is from the power of only the permanent magnets.

  I do not see any amplifying going on here. I could be wrong because it was a crude experiment and I have no expensive scientific measurement tools. In either case I do see a way to harness the power of the permanent magnet wether 3.47 times or 2 times the power in. ANYTHING over the amount put in would satisfy me. The math I couldn't care less about.

  Drak

QuoteIt seems to me all that is going on here is just adding up the electromagnets and permanent magnets and focusing them all in one direction.

That is exactly what is going on.  And that is all that is going on.

I just took a square core and wound a coil on one side and a coil on the other side.  I am putting 5 volts in on the input coil and getting 100 volts out on the other coil!  2000%!  I'm going to hurry up and patent this thing because I've seen it work.  It really is working!  I'm getting out 95 more volts than I'm putting in.  I will post instructions if anyone wants to replicate what I'm doing.

Quote from: jake on May 30, 2006, 04:05:54 PM

QuoteIt seems to me all that is going on here is just adding up the electromagnets and permanent magnets and focusing them all in one direction.

That is exactly what is going on.  And that is all that is going on.

I just took a square core and wound a coil on one side and a coil on the other side.  I am putting 5 volts in on the input coil and getting 100 volts out on the other coil!  2000%!  I'm going to hurry up and patent this thing because I've seen it work.  It really is working!  I'm getting out 95 more volts than I'm putting in.  I will post instructions if anyone wants to replicate what I'm doing.

Uhh, I think I smell sarcasm, but I'm not sure. Is this for real? If this is not sarcasm, of course we'd like to see and/or replicate what you are doing. Of course, just a voltage increase means nothing in and of itself. Could be you just reinvented the transformer.

Good nose.

Now, can you explain to me why this doesn't work?  I can assure you that I can wind a transformer to give me 2000% voltage increase.  Why is this not overunity?

Because you didn't increase amps with it. V(A)=W

But the math doesn't matter.  If I get 100 volts out, I can just hook up a light bulb and I'm getting more out than I put it.

I have 50 turns on the input, and 2000 turns on the output.  When I apply 5 volts I create some flux through the core.  This flux is passing through the other coil and it is picking up 100 volts from the flux.  I'm sure it will work because it should work.  If I hook up a load, the same amount of flux will still be produced by the 5 volts, so I will have the same flux through the output coil, so I will get 100 volts from 5 volts input.  This has to work.

But I have some flux through the core.  This flux will be the same if I keep V in = 5v.  Output voltage will be 100v.  100v = 20 times 5v.

If I hook a light to 100v I will have more power than If I hook it to 5v.

So, when I have no magnet in my transformer, watts in, watts out must be equal.  If I put a magnet in the transformer the rules change?  You see, nobody is concerned about power in = power out when there is a magnet in the circuit, when in reality, all the magnet does is biases the core with flux.

When I apply the same rules to a transformer that everyone is applying to the magnet circuit, we can see the problem.  We we add a magnet, nobody thinks the normal rules apply (but the same rules do apply.)

What is missing from the Asaoka patent is what happens when current flows in the output coil (which is required to get power out of the system).  This is readily accepted when we talk about a transformer, but not when the magnet is in the transformer.  For some reason people can't accept that the magnet does not add power to the circuit.

In a transformer, the reason you can't get the same (or more) VA out than in is because the output coil produces flux that counteracts the flux that is inducing the voltage in the output coil.  This counteracting flux is produced by the current flow in the output coil.  Until current flows, you do not see any counteracting flux to limit the output current.  Thus, I can get 100v from the output coil, until I load the output which will cause current flow.  The current flow will be limited such that the output VA will be <= to the input VA.

Similarly, in the Asaoka device, it will analyze as overunity until you consider the effect of the current flow in the output coil.  When the current flows, the flux will decrease through the output coil (even the "flynn effect" flux will be reduced, because this path is no longer "the easy path", because of the flux produced by the current flow in the output coil.

It should be obvious that this device cannot work as described if you really understand and respect how a simple transformer works.  I encourage anyone to continue to test the circuit until you are satisfied that it can't work.  It is just a transformer that is magnetically biased by the permanent magnet.  A proper analysis will show that the magnet will not produce any positive effect in the circuit.  It just drives the circuit close to saturation before the electric current is applied.

  Jake,

   I'm not planning on putting in an output coil. I plan on using it for motion and using the extra kick from the perminant magnets to make the motor stronger. When you start adding more to the equation, your making it harder on yourself to get OU.

  The key is steering the magnetic flux of the perminant magnets.

Like Lanca said

QuoteControlling the magnetic flux is the "must/secret" of all static/rotative
motor/generator/transformer devices !

  And with an extra kick from permanent magnets.......power from magnets.

Drak

I'm in large part playing devil's advocate Drak.

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.  Yet we will argue ad-nauseum about why they "should work".  One area that this is obvious is the gravity wheel type device.  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.

Things don't just work "because they should", or because we want them to.  When things work, they obey a lot of known rules.  This is not to say that we know all the rules, and that "overunity" is impossible.  I just think we shouldn't keep beating dead horses, and many of the things being discussed here are dead horses.

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

The Asaoka patent ignores what happens when current flows in the output circuit.  If you show current flow in the output circuit, you must show the corresponding flux that is produced by the current flow, which will subtract from the "steered" flux  These are glaring problems to "overlook".

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.  He might be keeping a lot of people off his tail by publishing something that looks like it is a big deal, when it is not.  I think if he found the holy grail, he is hiding with it.

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".  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 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.

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.




de Lanca,

I'm sorry that we don't speak the same language.  We could have a good discussion but I don't understand your posts very well.  I sense that you are telling me important things but I am not understanding them well.

Quote from Jake,

"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"."

I would agree with Jake that this device has a better future being used in a motor.  I believe that the magnetic strength (like lifting weights) transfers well through a transformer type of setup.  But the ability to generate power in a coil by using flux switching (such as the MEG) seems as though that it has more trouble traveling through a transformer laminated core to induce a power in a coil from a magnet source if placed too far away from the magnet. 

Testing and experimenting will tell the truth about "loading".  But I believe that only a ferromagnetic metal can be used (not a magnet) as a rotor.  I think that the introduction of a magnet on the rotor messes with the 'easiest path for flux travel' and interupts the desired direction of flux flow in a Flynn type device.

Liberty

Quote from: lancaIV on May 30, 2006, 09:57:52 PM
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

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

Please go on.  We always invite new ideas!

"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.

 Jake,

QuoteI'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.

QuoteIt 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

QuoteThings 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

QuoteIn 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

QuoteIt 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)

QuoteI 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%.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteI 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

QuoteHello 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

QuoteNo, 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)

This is what he claims, but when you look at the fourth figure in his experiment, wouldn't you expect to see 421 grams of force (or less)?  He says he is steering the flux with less input that what it would take to create the flux - which would mean that figure 4 (the one with 1091 grams) should have less force than figure 1 (421 grams).  Do you follow what I'm saying?  He is producing 1091 grams in figure 4, which is much more flux than the equivalent of one of the magnets (421 grams).

Actually maybe it is Tim Harwood that says this and not Flynn.


I just re-read from the Flynn site - http://www.flynnresearch.net/tests_&_results.htm (http://www.flynnresearch.net/tests_&_results.htm) - his analysis is pretty much what I was coming up with.  He acknowledges that you are losing a lot of the flux being produced in the electormagnet to achieve the steering.  The Flynn analyis looks good to me.  He acknowledges a 31% loss in the electrical part of the circuit in his analysis.

QuoteI'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'm not sure whether to answer this, since you do all your thinking on your own :D - but I will.  Running a piece of metal through a magnetic field is exactly what causes eddy currents (anything that is electrically conductive would be susceptible to eddy currents).

Your idea of parking the flynn coil between 2 rotors seems valid enough, but it does prohibit putting multiple coils around the rotor.  I'm not sure why you would have to tie the rotors together.  The more mechanical things you can remove from the design the better off you will be (in my opinion)  Do the magic with electricity.

I would say that reading everything on peswiki.com about the flynn stuff is a must before making a serious attempt at building anything.  There is good information there as to what has worked and what has not worked.

QuoteAnd also remember, I have done the test and I am getting the extra pull from the perm magnents...more torque

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

Quote from Jake:

"Running a piece of metal through a magnetic field is exactly what causes eddy currents (anything that is electrically conductive would be susceptible to eddy currents)."

Jake, would motion between two magnets cause eddy currents in the magnets?

Quotewould motion between two magnets cause eddy currents in the magnets?

I don't know.

I think if the magnet is electrically conductive and it actually intersects other flux paths eddy currents must occur, but the short answer is I don't know.

My guess is that since magnets emit a magnetic field, the field state within the magnet is constant, and therefore there are no changing magnetic fields strong enough to generate eddy currents within a magnet.  If a weak magnet was in a strong magnetic field, I think that it is possible to induce eddy currents within the weaker magnet while being subjected to a stronger changing magnetic field.

I have not noticed any effects of eddy currents in my magnet motor as it runs cool as a cucumber.  This is how I came up with the above conclusion.

Liberty

You could very well be right that if the magnets are equal the fields somehow don't change within the magnet.

I think in any case, the eddy currents (if any) would be dwarfed by the other forces in the scenario you describe.

Eddy currents are a big deal in "traditional" motors, which is why you don't see normal production motors without laminated armatures.  Old solid rotor motors would be 10's of points lower in efficiency than the 90-96% efficient motors commonly used today.

Quote from: Liberty on May 31, 2006, 08:42:42 AM
Quote from Jake:

"Running a piece of metal through a magnetic field is exactly what causes eddy currents (anything that is electrically conductive would be susceptible to eddy currents)."

Jake, would motion between two magnets cause eddy currents in the magnets?

Hi,

I think the answer can also be yes. I remember a German experimenter, Helmut Goebkes built a magnet motor made fully from permanent magnets and his magnets got weak soon and his motor stopped. His arrangement included passing magnets near each other in repel. He and others advised him to use ceramic magnets instead of Neos. A description of his experiments is still in the files section of Stefan Hartmann earlier Yahoo mail group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-energy/files/ and see folder  "goebkes magnet motor". For those who were not member at that Yahoo group I have attached the files below.  

The strange thing is that Helmut did not include in his text that his magnets got hot during operation or not. Maybe he did not pay attention at that time for checking it, he mentions the loss of strength in his Neo magnets. Nevertheless all this happened during 1999.

By the way I think Helmut is also a member here (though I cannot remember his 'alias' at the moment) and I would appreciate to read his further experiments with the ceramic magnets in the same motor. ;)  

Regards
Gyula

Off hand, I would say that the soft iron that was used is the reason for the generation of eddy currents from the rotor magnets, especially through the stator magnets.  Also facing stator magnets in repel so close would stress the magnetic orientation (alignment of poles) within the stator magnets.

Ideally, you want to structure your motor so that you do not run into any opposing magnetic fields.  You also want to take advantage of both attract and repel.

It is a very interesting design though.  Thanks for the drawings.

Yes, I agree.

I included Helmut's text file before that contains his findings but noticed nobody opened it. Now I attached separately.

Gyula

It's a very interesting design.

I wonder what caused the magnets to die.  The only thing I know of that will cause Neo's to lose it is that fast is heat.

This is why I believe there is an energy in magnets, not just a force. They say magnetism is a force, however you cannot impart a force on something, but you can impart an energy into a system. A force is a natural result of physical conditions, and as long as those physical conditions are the same, a force is constant, and cannot be deminished or increased. As you use energy however, energy is transformed to an unusable state, which effectively makes it expendable (I know you cannot create or destroy energy, only transform it). With magnets, you can impart magnetism in other ferrous materials, and you can expend magnetism via heat and repulsion.

Jake,

QuoteJust 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

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.

Jake,

QuoteYour 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

Jake,

QuoteNormally 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. 

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

The invention proceeds from the realization that between
electro-technology and the fluid engineering an analogy exists
existing existing-be-being these in it that an electromagnetic field
around leaders bent one as desired and a zone of flow are described
around arbitrary-any vortex filament by the same connection, i.e. Biot
Biot-Savart Gesetz.Die sizes of "increase in magnetic field strength"
und"Geschwindigkeitszunahme" of the zone of flow corresponds therefore
each other.....

Probably why motor designers hate open ended magnetic circuits.

Looks like the arrangement of the materials is very important.

User..1  You are right on all points.  Build it and let me know how it works.



de Lanca (is this the proper way to address you?)

I have found the patent, and I printed the drawing. (attached to this post)

Help with this: (Wie die meisten faulen Amerikaner spreche ich nicht Deutsches)-blablafish

1 = housing/case?
2 = shaft?
3 = switch cam?
4 = input power connection?
5 = electromagnet?
6 = dauermagnete - permanent magnet?
7 = ? magnetic bearing?? some kind of bearing.
8 = ? plate??
9 = Isolator?  Magnetic isolation or physical (shock) isolation?

What is the theory of the motor? It is not clear why this is more than a simple motor.

I don't want money for the drawings.  I want to find the right project and help.  I can't spend a lot of money, but I have a lot of tools and resources that can be helpful if we can decide on a project to design and build.

I would like to look at some promising magnetic motors and design our own, using the best ideas.  Then we can work together on the design.  We can share drawings and information here until we think we have a good design, then build it and test.

I will study US5463914 tomorrow.

Hi Jake and Lanca,

I found the English Abstract of this patent at the European Patent Office.
Also I included my understanding/best guess on the Figure's numbered text. I used online translator and a German technical dictionary for the Figure text.

DE3602039 Machine for obtaining energy, without any hazardous materials, in accordance with the energy principle of nature                                                      
Publication date: 1986-06-19
Inventor: GRAMBERG HANS-GEORG-WALTER (DE)       

Abstract of DE3602039:  In the case of the subject matter of the patent application, the electrical input energy which is supplied in a pulsed manner is absorbed simultaneously by both poles of the electromagnet which is mounted, as is shown on the attached schematic drawing, firmly on the outer framework of the subject matter of the application, and is at the same time forced as fast as a flash of lightning from these two poles to both poles of the permanent magnet which in each case rotates past and is in the form of a horseshoe, from which permanent magnets the same input energy is at the same time once again forced back on to both poles of the electromagnet as fast as a flash of lightning and thus acts in a repelling manner four times, that is to say twice with double the force, as fast as a flash of lightning. All the repulsions are in the form of two beams and are mutual, that is to say in each case two times twice, that is to say four times, from in each case one input energy quantum, as in the case of the energy principle of nature between the sun and earth. In the case of the subject matter of the invention, when the electromagnet which is mounted firmly on the outer framework is subjected to current in a pulsed manner in each case, this results in the rotor rotating four times as quickly, on the one hand as a result of the quadruple full-inten-sity repulsion from in each case one electrical input energy quantum, without any moving-away or passage loss in terms of input energy and on the other hand as a result of the traction of the permanent magnet, which is located on the outer edge of the rotor, to the electromagnet shortly before it is subjected to current, in each case in a pulsed manner, as fast as a flash of lightning.

Figure explanations:

1 frame of the machine
2 rotary axis from brass
3 arm-switch fixed to the rotary axis 
4 current source 
5 electromagnets 
6 permanent magnets in horseshoe form  (dauer magnet=permanent magnet)
8 (End)Supports
9 insulating pieces  (not clear for me if they are shock absorbers or magnetic shieldings)
7 full-ring-shaped horseshoe (i.e. toroidal) magnets facing (each other) with their side Poles of the same name to compensate the earth attraction (gravity),  with change of the current supply contacts (as) the rotor walks around on the left or on the right.  (I put my extra, explaining words in parentheses, they are not included in the original German text)

Unfortunately it is also not clear for me yet why or how this setup is overunity.

Regards
Gyula

Thanks, Gyula

The design is not mechanically strong either.  If the method of operation turns out to be acceptable, we will have to change the mechanical design, becuase it will break apart from centrifugal force, "as fast as a flash of lightning"!!

I studied http://www.kundelmotor.com/ (http://www.kundelmotor.com/) last night.  This is interesting - appeared here in another topic.  It doesn't look like an overunity opportunity, but it has some design features that I like.  I wonder about the eddy currents in this type of action.  It looks like the concept would minimize eddy current effects.  The concept is good but his implementation is not.  I think many improvements can be made to his concept to create something interesting.

QuoteIt's partly described in  US5926083.
CAREFULLY study it.

User,

I did carefully study it.  I don't agree with the analysis in the patent and I explained why in an earlier post.

Lets quit talking about it now.

Build it and show us.

Has anybody built one of these things? Seems to me it would be pretty simple to take a couple of small bits of iron, some winding wire and a couple of magnets and test the basic principle. Has anyone done this? If not I fail to see the point in speculating any further on it. If this thread has any point it would be verification, otherwise we're just spinning our wheels right? Forgive me if I missed it, as I lost interest in this thread a long time ago, when it looked like we were just going to talk it to death.

Well here I go.   About two years ago I ended a two year work on the Flynn Parallel Path motor design.   I studied all his drawings and info on his web site.

In that two years I built five motors on his design.  The best I could get out of the motors was around %95 efficiency.  Now that was not bad, the motors all used brushes to activate the coils.  Not bad for a brush motor, however I could never get overunity with any one of them.   I used all types of magnets including ceramic and rare earth N45's and N48's.  These motors were all built using ceramic bearings, the drage was keept to a mininum.  The bigest problem I had was over saturating the silicon steel laminat and I couldn't figure out how to build the motor without that problem.  Maybe Flynn has a secret, I don't know.  Now before you get huffy, I'm just saying I couldn't get it to go overunity, however somebody else may do so.

Now the Parallel Path Idea does work, but incorperating it in a motor where histeress and back emf takes place, I just could not get good results.

At that point I new I had to figure out a way to work the Parallel path a different way or it just was not going to be a seccess.  Thats where I'm at today.  I think I figured out a better way to get the job done.  I'm still working on it.

JackH

Thanks Jack!

I knew someone had to have done this. It seemed too basic a concept for someone to not tinker with it.

Now we have some solid results to refer to..

BTW Jack did you try mu-metal shielding to avoid saturation? It's expensive, and I don't know the configuration of the motor you built, but it might help a lot. Depending on what the siSteel was for of course.

Hello gn0stik,

No I didn't try mu-metal, however I really didn't think it would work to well because I don't think it has a very high resistence to electric flow.  If that's the case histeress would have been an even bigger problem.  I really do not know too much about this mu-metal, maybe that IS the secret.

I would really like to try some of this mu-metal on my motors, maybe it would be much better than silicon steel laminet.  I contacted the manufacture last week about it but it is way out of my budget at this point.

I think maybe that Flynn has not completly given the full details on his motor.  After reading of how he was getting so much HP out of such a small motor, maybe I have missed something.   All I know is that I spent the better part of two years making models trying to make it go over unity.

Later,,,,,JackH

QuoteWhat  Jake keeps claiming, is that it doesn't work.

Please tell me where I keep claiming it doesn't work.

Question:  Who made the following statements:

QuoteThe Flynn thing is very interesting at minimum.

QuoteAt minimum, the Flynn device exposes some interesting things.

QuoteIt seems like Flynn stuff is producing some very interesting test results, and is being reproduced by others.

Interestingly, I don't think Flynn ever touted his motor to be "overunity".  He just sold it as being very efficient and let it speak for itself.

QuoteI think the Flynn strategy was clever - keep the claims modest and let the hardware do the talking.

QuoteI'm not saying all this to imply that the Flynn circuit is useless, but to point out that it is probably not magic.  Upon analysis the circuit works just the way it should.

QuoteI encourage you to build the device and test it.

QuoteRespectfully, build it and prove it to yourself.

QuoteI believe that Flynn must be doing some impressive things.  I just don't believe that his public information is telling all of the story.  He might be keeping a lot of people off his tail by publishing something that looks like it is a big deal, when it is not.  I think if he found the holy grail, he is hiding with it.

QuoteI 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".

QuoteI encourage what you are doing with a motor using the principle.

QuoteI just re-read from the Flynn site - http://www.flynnresearch.net/tests_&_results.htm - his analysis is pretty much what I was coming up with.  He acknowledges that you are losing a lot of the flux being produced in the electormagnet to achieve the steering.  The Flynn analyis looks good to me.  He acknowledges a 31% loss in the electrical part of the circuit in his analysis.

QuoteYour idea of parking the flynn coil between 2 rotors seems valid enough...

QuoteI would say that reading everything on peswiki.com about the flynn stuff is a must before making a serious attempt at building anything.  There is good information there as to what has worked and what has not worked.

QuoteAnything 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.

(Do you dispute this?)

QuoteI 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.

Answer:  Me - in this topic.

Now, you show me where I "keep claiming it doesn't work"

I have made critical analysis of the Flynn device (That really doesn't differ from Flynn's own analysis, in retrospect).  I have pointed out why the Flynn device (as shown) will not work as a MEG.  I have stated that I believe the device (as shown) is more interesting as a force based device than a flux based device.

I'm sorry if you perceive my input here as "keeps claiming it doesn't work".  It appears that objectivitiy is not welcome here.

I think my actual quotes above more than acquit me of your claim.

I stand by all I have said, and challenge you to build the device and prove me wrong (right).

Quotehe can't seem to figure out that the coils aren't used to make flux

  Actually they are. Each coil produces exactly the same flux as one of the magnets and in turn steers the permanent magnents.

QuoteEach coil produces exactly the same flux as one of the magnets and in turn steers the permanent magnents.

Actually, if you study the Flynn example, the pair of coils produce the equivalent of 1.6 times the flux as one of the magnets.  The net gain is equivalent to one of the magnets.

Thus, you are putting in the amount of energy required for 1.6 magnets to add the effect of 1 magnet.  Flynn's own analysis is very clear about this if you take the time to read it.  Here is a copy of Flynn's own results:

QuoteTest Summary:

If the 'one magnet test' in the upper left is considered to produce an equivalent of 1 unit of force then the flux would also be 1 unit, since force is a function of flux squared.

The ' 2 magnet version' in the upper right would therefore equal 2.021 units of flux and 4.087 units of force.

The 'Parallel Path Magnetic Technology' in the lower left, powered as indicated would be equal to 9.01 units of force and 3.022 units of flux.

The Conventional system would be equal to 2.59 units of force and 1.6 units of flux.

With the same electrical input the Parallel Path System produced 3.47 times more force than the conventional system.

Comparing the '2 magnet system' with the 'Parallel Path System' where the only difference should be due to the flux produced by the 'conventional' system we find: The '2 magnet system's' flux added to the 'conventional system's' flux is 2.021 + 1.6 = 3.621 units of flux. Calculating in this manner the force should have been 13.11 units of force rather than 9.01 units.

Therefore It Is concluded that the flux of two permanent magnets can be added electro-magnetically to produce a force that is greater than the force that can be produced by the electromagnetic system alone.

Since the Parallel Path System produced 3.47 times more force than the conventional system, with the same electrical input, it appears to violate conservation, this is only true when observed from a traditional view point.  The system contains three flux producing sources (2 magnets and an electromagnet) which together are capable of producing a far greater force than is actually produced. All of the flux sources together can produce a force of 13.11 units, therefore in the physical sense a loss of  1 - (9.01 / 13.11) =  31% is realized.

Parallel Path Magnetic Technology will contribute to the age old physics debate as to whether a permanent magnet can provide additional energy to a magnetic system.

Please note in the above analysis: 2.021 + 1.6 = 3.621

That 1.6 figure is the figure I keep talking about.  1.6 units is how much flux the coils should add to the circuit.   But, in fact, they only add the equivalent of 1.0 units of flux.  Please read Flynn's words.  Maybe they make more sense than mine.  He is saying the same thing.

  First paragraph in this page:

http://www.flynnresearch.net/Page_4.htm


Drak

And when you take the magnets out of the circuit you get 1.6 units of flux from the same current.

http://www.flynnresearch.net/tests_%26_results.htm (http://www.flynnresearch.net/tests_%26_results.htm)

  Ok I see now. Kind of contradicting, right?

Yes.

There are very slight (but significant) discrepencies on the site, but it seems mostly accurate and informative.

It still looks interesting and promising as a general concept.  I'm sure there are uses for the technology when the proper arrangements are devised.

Hello Jake,
www.solarnavigator.net/lynch_motor.htm,
short magnetic path !
But this are "only" good efficiency motors,88%-91% !
Helmut Schiller motor performance claims:95%-98% !
www.electrifyingtimes.com/Helmut_Schiller_motor.html
Also an important parameter of the OU-engine :
high power-density,KW/Nm per kg !

S
  dL

p.s.: When you read or write in FORMULAS  v^2 and c^2 
       then you read or write:acceleration-related !

       A rotor has two sides:why we do not use both,
       DE BUYST-/MUKHERJEE-/RUST- idea/-l !!!
       This are also "circumventing the LENZ-law" solutions !
       
                   
       

Quote from: lancaIV on June 07, 2006, 03:54:35 PM


       A rotor has two sides:why we do not use both,
       DE BUYST-/MUKHERJEE-/RUST- idea/-l !!!
       This are also "circumventing the LENZ-law" solutions !
       
                   
       

De Lanca, please post more info about this.
Do you have a patent number for this ?Thanks !

depatisnet or espacenet:
Rust,DE3713965         german      :
De Buyst,BE438189     french       : OPEN SOURCE
Mukherjee,DE2733719  german      :

and actually:
www.trinitymotors.net   the powermax:Motor/Generator

S
  dL

p.s.: Jake-special:Holger Zeissler,DE19522794 +Rust,DE3713965
       for your car-drive idea !
       "Tilley meets trinitymotors",under OPEN SOURCE condition !!!

       

Hello lancaIV,

In the past severial years I have been checking out all of the very efficient motors that are working at %95 TO %98 efficiency.  However one problem exist with these motors.  Yes thay are brushless motors and the motor it's self does have the high efficiency rating.  However these motors need a special controll unit to run them.  If you check the power input to the controll unit against the power output from the motor, most of them are running at around %75 efficiency.  The power unit is loosing the efficiency.

Later,,,,,JackH

Hello Jack H.,
I think that the energy "consume" of the controller part is max.10%,
so the range 85% is possible !
But this is only a part of the "puzzle" !

Sincerely
            de Lanca

Similar to Flynn`s PP motor,
Kango IIDA(JP2004194491) - generator,
and           WO2004057740.

!!!:The WO abstract-in short form-:
starter+ motor +generator combination

WO-images,page 2:diagramm-?

S
  dL

p.s.:for the static generator trial the Keiichiro Asaoka
      publications JP2003079128 (MEG-"clon"?Filling:03.09.01)and
      especially JP2003009558(modul/units)
      could be also a help !

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pes_flynn_pp/message/160?threaded=1&var=1 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pes_flynn_pp/message/160?threaded=1&var=1)

Interesting results of Flynn replication used as a MEG.


From the above link:

QuoteDear Mr. Sterling,
I've found your site extremely interesting and well organized.

I'm sending some pictures of my replication of Flynn's PP demonstration
device.

The four laminates pieces are 1 cm wide and stack for about 8mm total thick.
The ceramic magnets are cilinders of 1 cm diameter and 1 cm tall, 4 stacked
for 4 cm total lenght.

The coils are made by 0.4mm wire, 560 turns for each one, wired as
instructed.
The third, small coil you see in the picture is 75 turns and I used it just
for study the induced signals.

I have used a 0.2mm Aluminum sheet for creating the gap.
Following are the results of two series of experiments.

1. find the "zero flux" current : the flux is zeroed for a current of about
130 mA , corresponding to about 1.2 V across the two coils; under that
condition
the opposing branch fall off and if you try to put it back in place you can
clearly feel no force acting on it.
Note that w/o the gap the current needed to zero the flux falls down to 60
mA.

The force was then measured by means of a scale arranged so that I could
gently pull down the device and measure the force:
-with the magnets I have found a max force of 650 g (min was 600 g)
-without magnets but same current, the max force was 200 g (min was 150
g)
-with the magnets but without current the force was about 400 g but
measurements
were very scattered.

These numbers suggest an increase of force of about 3.25

2. I have then installed a piezo electric probe in the gap and fed the coils
with the output of a transformer; a 1K potenziometer was used to adjust the
current as per test 1, this current was measured through a 1 Ohm resistor
, 5% accuracy (need to measure its real Ohm).
The 3 oscilloscope pictures show the piezo signal (top trend) and the
current
to the coils (btm sine wave at 20 mA/Div). Time base was 5 ms/Div.
- Without magnets, the piezo signal is at 100 Hz (two hits for every current
period) , about 240 mV wide
- With one magnet (located in opposite position w/ respect to the branch
with the piezo probe) the signal becomes about 450 mV wide
- With the two magnets in place the signal is now at 50 Hz of about 780
mV wide and the current was not changed at all.

The force is magnified by about 780/240= 3.25 times (by coincidence close
to the scale tests) without any increase of the power to the coils.

Note that the current was swinging between about [+45mA, -45mA] +-5% and
the gap was close to 1 mm due to the piezo thickness: with that current the
flux was probably not completely zeroed and this may explain why the shape
of the force wave is not a perfect sine. I shall repeat the tests with
higher
current.

Note that while the absolute value of magnetic flux is almost double with
the magnets, its variation with time does not seem to change very much when
compared with the one you get without magnets. The use of PP effect for
electric
motors seems to be the "easiest" way of trasforming this magnetic energy
into useful work since inducing the signal into secondary coils seems to
be a little tricky, so far no change was observed in the secondary coil
induced
signal when magnets were added, at least using the 50 Hz sine wave.
If we use the piezo curves to compare the variation of flux with time, with
and w/o magnets, we get (according to my questionable "eyes" reading):

- w/o magnets : signal (force) is about 240mV/5ms = 48 and its square root
is 6.928 units
- with 2 magnets the signal slope is about 780mV/13.5 ms=57.77 and its
square
root is 7.6 units

So 7.6/6.928=1.096 , we should expect almost 10% increse in the energy
recovered
by the secondary coil but this was not the case: so far, I could not detect
any appreciable change in the sine wave induced by the magnetic flux in the
secondary coil.

I would appreciate very much any advise and comment to improve the tests
or correct mistakes, I'm learning a lot.

Thanks,

Guido Capone
ITALY

QuoteI am presently doing some calcs with FEMM software but the best I
could do is to simulate a sequence of steady states, just frozen
situations. In a dynamic state, where Lenz's law and input Volts-
induced Flux phase shifts (as in normal transformer) are involved,
the results may be very different. I know I'm missing the key of it
but at least I'm learning.
So far, however, what I found is that the overall flux change with
time (i.e. dB/dt or I'd better say dB/di) induced by the current is
not different w/ and w/o magnets. The big difference is in the
absolute value of B flux: it doubles with the two magnets in place.
This would theoretically confirm that it can not be operated as a
normal transformes, as we well know.

From a later post on the same site.

Anybody can answer this question:

Switching a magnetic flux from permanent magnets beetween two closed magnetic paths using coils. When the electric pulse is OFF, the magnetic field return to initial state (same flux on both magnetic paths) or remains on the magnetic path where was confined when the pulse was ON?

Hello penguin hood,

""Switching a magnetic flux from permanent magnets beetween two closed magnetic paths using coils. When the electric pulse is OFF, the magnetic field return to initial state (same flux on both magnetic paths) or remains on the magnetic path where was confined when the pulse was ON?""

Your statement is only true if there is no air gap between the field poles.  If an air gap is present the magnetic field will return to what it was before the pulse DC.    Magnetic flux lines will always return to the least resistance path.
You need to understand that if this Flynn device was used in a motor, there would be an air gap between the rotor and the magnet poles.

Later,,,,JackH

Many thanks JackH, I appreciate much your pretty answer

I just saw, that Flynn has a new rotary motor design at thsi page:

http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20Technology.htm (http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20Technology.htm)

Look into the PDF file at the buttom of the page.

http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20technology%20white%20paper.pdf (http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20technology%20white%20paper.pdf)

There it is stated, that this motor has a very much reduced drag effect,
with other words the Lentz law does not apply to it or is much reduced !
Looks very interesting !

Can this technology be used to move magnetic flux so it cuts through a coil and generates electricity, similar to what is done in http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/mpi-patentapplication.pdf

They claim overunity, in a device that has no moving parts.

Quote from: FredWalter on July 28, 2006, 09:19:06 AM
Can this technology be used to move magnetic flux so it cuts through a coil and generates electricity, similar to what is done in http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/mpi-patentapplication.pdf

They claim overunity, in a device that has no moving parts.

If you're talking about making a perm magnet boosted transformer, the problem is that the secondary, output coils, create a magnetic field that opposes the control coils so that the flux from the perm magnets stops being forced into the secondaries.  :'(

Flynn is now at QM Power and they seem to be seriously going into production. The new administration must have remove the restrictions on their motor generator competing with existing markets. See http://www.qmpower.com/content.aspx?page=company

Found the below two world patent applications numbers on this site. They explain his latest design and control. After going to the site, you need to download the 'Initial Publication with ISR'  to get the full patent application with all drawings.

Regards, Larry   

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?SEARCH_IA=US2008058521&DBSELECT=PCT&ABIMAGE=02102008%2FUS2008058521_02102008_gz_en.x4&C=00&TOTAL=1&IDB=0&TYPE_FIELD=256&SERVER_TYPE=19-00&QUERY=PCT%2FUS2008%2F058521&START=1&ELEMENT_SET=BASICHTML-ENG&SORT=41265682-KEY&RESULT=1&DISP=25&FORM=SEP-0%2FHITNUM%2CB-ENG%2CDP%2CMC%2CAN%2CPA%2CABSUM-ENG&IDOC=1849104&IA=US2008058521&LANG=ENG&DISPLAY=DOCS

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?SEARCH_IA=US2008056240&DBSELECT=PCT&ABIMAGE=12092008%2FUS2008056240_12092008_gz_en.x4&C=00&TOTAL=1&IDB=0&TYPE_FIELD=256&SERVER_TYPE=19-00&QUERY=PCT%2FUS2008%2F056240&START=1&ELEMENT_SET=BASICHTML-ENG&SORT=41270689-KEY&RESULT=1&DISP=25&FORM=SEP-0%2FHITNUM%2CB-ENG%2CDP%2CMC%2CAN%2CPA%2CABSUM-ENG&IDOC=1788522&IA=US2008056240&LANG=ENG&DISPLAY=DOCS

Hey Larry -

Thanks for the update on Flynn.  And for the WIPO patent links.
At 71 pages, I look foward to finding the time to dive in.
It's great to see his work being further developed and apparently being brought to the market place.

Was/has Flynn ever stopped by here (or any other forum) to discuss his stuff?
I'm surprised at the relative apparent lack of interest on this forum towards his work.

His previous US patent#: 6,342,746 was some good stuff offering many variations on his idea(s) and offered a surprising amount of details.

A primary question in the past was magnet strength.
Ceramic magnets were normally recommended to prevent core saturation, and the effect was presented by the (very) few tests I've seen as having a narrow 'window' - small voltage/amps ranges and magnet/core ranges.

However, Jan Vink's replication ( http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:FPPP:Replication:Jan_Vink ) uses N42 neos and 15 watts.  He reports N35 neos as using .88 watts (although magnet dimensions aren't given. I would suppose they are a bit smaller given the results??)
Larger/stronger magnets would provide more useful power.

It would appear from the latest Flynn info that large neos are being used and the 'window' has been enlarged.

I've considered how to implement his design(s) into a piston-style motor and how well it might work, maybe someday....

Would love to hear more discussion, updates, thoughts, links (anything!) etc. on Flynn's work!!

With a  four years lapse on this subject, I have to ask. Is anyone on this forum trying to duplicate the motor and generator designs of Joeseph Flynn? I have seen replications of his motor on YouTube. I can't find anyone doing a duplication of his version of a motionless generator. A look at his site shows it hasn't been updated for some time and his research has been absorbed by DARPA. This means that it is a real, working technology. Otherwise, they wouldn't be involved.

Going to the site http://www.flynnresearch.net/products/PPMT%20Products.htm shows that:
"Our PPMT-T2 high power density generator designs are currently proprietary and restricted, and not for public release at this time."

What this means is that the generator works too well to ever be released into the public domain.
In the United States, it is not illegal to reproduce for your own use something that is patented. It would become illegal if you tried to sell what you made. However, if you made an improvement or altered the object in some way, you can file your own patent application or release your altered design into the public domain.

Quote from: Earthrise on October 13, 2013, 01:45:12 PM
With a  four years lapse on this subject, I have to ask. Is anyone on this forum trying to duplicate the motor and generator designs of Joeseph Flynn? I have seen replications of his motor on YouTube. I can't find anyone doing a duplication of his version of a motionless generator. A look at his site shows it hasn't been updated for some time and his research has been absorbed by DARPA. This means that it is a real, working technology. Otherwise, they wouldn't be involved.

Going to the site http://www.flynnresearch.net/products/PPMT%20Products.htm (http://www.flynnresearch.net/products/PPMT%20Products.htm) shows that:
"Our PPMT-T2 high power density generator designs are currently proprietary and restricted, and not for public release at this time."

What this means is that the generator works too well to ever be released into the public domain.
In the United States, it is not illegal to reproduce for your own use something that is patented. It would become illegal if you tried to sell what you made. However, if you made an improvement or altered the object in some way, you can file your own patent application or release your altered design into the public domain.

Flynnresearch wrote 2006 about a great power density and in the pdf we see an
400Hz example !
High power density -up to 1/10 comparing with conventional DC motors also to find here:  [size=78%]http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/brush.html (http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/brush.html)[/size]