new magnetic motor goes 2000 rpm without load 1000 rpm with load

[Ergo]

I'm well aware of both the HildenBrand and Flynn motors but they have never been proven overunity.
There's several replications on the Flynn device and it seems like you getting a free meal.
But none of those replicants took the importance core area into play.
If they had tested twice the core area they would have noticed that it would render the same
force as having half the area and a magnet inserted at the same amount of power input.

When it comes to generating magnetic fields then there is only three things that matter.
1) Using a closed loop whithout any airgaps whatsoever, aka the toroid shape.
2) The permeability of the core. higher is better.
3) The ferromagnetic core size, larger is better.

I have tested both the HildenBrand valve and the Flynn concept numerous times.
In all occasions I found the same force being generated when using twice the core area.
In my book there is no overunity to be found from either HildenBrand or Flynn.

[hartiberlin]

This video shows
a special MEG with 240 % efficiency:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-avdbf9B1w


For more info go to this thread:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.0

Regards, Stefan.

[Ted Ewert]

Sorry to hear your test results didn't show you anything Ergo. Fortunately mine did, so I need no further convincing. 

Cheers,

Ted

[Ergo]

Sorry to hear your test results didn't show you anything Ergo. Fortunately mine did, so I need no further convincing. 

Cheers,
Ted

If you refer to the boosting "Flynn" effect in your tests then please make the same tests with
twice the core area and no magnets. Then you'll see....

[Ted Ewert]

If you refer to the boosting "Flynn" effect in your tests then please make the same tests with
twice the core area and no magnets. Then you'll see....

I think we may be talking apples and oranges here. There are hundreds of different ways to switch and redirect magnetic current. Many exhibit no practical advantage and some produce a loss. It all depends on what the purpose and application are intended to accomplish.
Permeability and hysteresis have little to do with the core principal of Faraday's law which states: "The induced electromotive force or EMF in any closed circuit is equal to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit".
This "law" as stated is conditional. I found that "magnetic flux" is not all the same thing. Faraday's law only holds true as long as the voltage and the current are out of phase, which is nearly always the case in an AC circuit (especially through an inductive load such as a transformer).
However, DC won't produce induction only because the voltage and current are in phase, not because of the lack of change. This has nothing to do with permeability or core size.
Magnets are similar in this respect. Electrical current will only be induced in a coil if the magnet is moving with respect to the coil. Movement alters the phase of the B and H fields, just like AC alters the phase of voltage and current.
When magnetic flux from a permanent magnet is switched through a coil, without any physical movement involved, NO electrical current is produced in the coil from that magnet. I proved this through numerous configurations where magnetic flux from a PM was positively switched through a coil with absolutely no current induced in that coil. In my mind, this absolutely refutes Faraday's contention that it is the change in current that is the only condition for induction.
Which is why I question the MEG. Under "normal" conditions it doesn't work, even though theoretically it should. That is not to say that a way to alter the phase of the B and H fields without movement has not been found. Perhaps it has. This, to me, is the holy grail of MEG building.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of gain in a switched magnetic configuration either. While trying to get a MEG to work, I found a lot of different ways to switch flux around. Some quite intriguing. 

Cheers,

Ted