AC-to-AC, PM parallel path concept.

[nwman]

Thanks for the articles. I separately came up with those idea myself and its good to see I'm on the right track. Maybe!

I do not know if you have read Josh's research paper on Flynn's parallel path technology?  Here is a link to that page where you can read the PDF paper: http://www.flynnresearch.net/young%20scientist/Josh%20Jones/josh.htm

The paper confirms what Flynn's patent claims: you can sum up or add the flux of permanent magnets (and that of the electromagnets) inside ferromagnetic cores (an armature in this case).

I have read parts of it on other sites.

Is this result overunity?  No. It simply makes possible to increase the pulling force of an electromagnet without increasing input power.  And this was a static test. The paper ends with "more research will be done in the quest for overunity operation".  This paper was prepared more than 2 years ago.  I wonder where Josh is now with his further experiments?  

That’s what I’m still trying ot figure out. It seems to be no question that the flux is increased. Why does it not produce an equally greater current in the secondary?

So I think dynamic tests could follow from where he finished his paper in the basic parallel path. It is  100% sure Lenz effect will appear in a dynamic test with a load across the output coils. This is the next step to solve, at least.

Why would an AC transformer work and not my configuration [if the flux acts as I theories]?

One thing BEP suggests to you is to physically rotate the magnet(s) in the setup for changing the direction of the flux rather than to use steering coils for this job. I think this is a good suggestion, especially if you consider Paul's comments and ideas at this peswiki site to ease this task: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:FPPMT:Paul_Noel  

I have considered this. It just opens the door to a lot of variable that are difficult to calculate. In regard to the “steeping” of the system I have called it a cascading effect. Same difference. I do think this is a logical step for any design of this nature. However it seems that the simple configuration would have enough multiplying effect to achieve our goal. Plus I just like to keep the principles simple at first.

Tim

EDIT: P.S. Check out these two posts/videos. http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5425.msg136821#msg136821

[gyulasun]

Quote
(Is this result overunity?  No. It simply makes possible to increase the pulling force of an electromagnet without increasing input power.  And this was a static test. snip)

That’s what I’m still trying ot figure out. It seems to be no question that the flux is increased. Why does it not produce an equally greater current in the secondary?

Hi Tim,

Well, the increased flux (i.e. the sum of the 2 permanent and that of the electromagnets) will certainly be able to produce a greater output current in the load than the electromagnet alone. But then an equally greater counter flux will be working against the summed flux (normal Lenz law).  Of course this could be already overunity in theory but you actually have to achieve this in practice and I have not seen any such report in parallel path setup like shown here. (I know this does not mean it is always underunity, lol.)

Quote
(Why would an AC transformer work and not my configuration [if the flux acts as I theories]?)

I did not say your config would not work, only I mean you have to be careful how you excite your input coils. In a normal AC transformer the B/H curve is driven between the total negative to positive flux value areas (say between -1 and +1 and the limits are the saturation limits) and a zero crossing is always involved.
In a pulsed input core the B/H curve usually is excited from zero to either (say) either  -1 or +1 and there is no zero crossing. (Imagine, usually most of the experimenters switch a voltage across a coil from zero to a positive value.)
Also, the permanent magnets flux is to be considered too because it also sets a (static) magnetic bias on the B/H curve.
This problem is similar to biasing an active device (transistor, FET, electric valve) with a certain DC bias to establish a so called operational point and allowing the AC signal to shift this otherwise static DC point within a useful operational area. The limits should be chosen to be able to utilize (if possible) the total available and useful range of the device. 

rgds,  Gyula

[nwman]

Does anyone see a problem with this design? Any comments?

Tim

[nwman]

Would anyone be willing to render this idea in that magnetic simulation software? My major guess in this idea is if the fields will actually switch in the connecting bars or if they will resist the control coils and not fluctuate.

Tim

[Ergo]

Hi there nwman.

I figure you don't want to hear this (the truth is painful) but a magnet boosted transformer will never perform any good.
It will have even worse efficiency than any regular transformer. Why is this the case?

Well, it's simply that a magnet inserted into a transformer circuit will shift the B/H working curve of the ferromagnetic material.
It might seem like you get four times the output from the device in static mode but you actually only get the same out as if you had
used twice the core area and scrapped the magnet.
In dynamic mode you repeatedly have to force the shifted B/H curve back past zero all the way to the other end. This takes just as much
power as you gained by inserting the magnet... But wait....it gets even worse. When you insert a powerful neodymium into the transformer
you actually force the material close to saturation when switching it on/off and this causes a lot of material loss on every pulse repetition.
The losses is a lot higher than a regular transformer that is working safely away from being saturated.
There you have it. A magnet boosted transformer will always perform less than any regular transformer.

Simply put:
You can't redirect the static flux from an inserted magnet without spending the same amount of energy in the coil. Gain ZERO