Flynn's Parallel Path

[jake]

Now, 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.

[jake]

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.

[Elvis Oswald]

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.

[Elvis Oswald]

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.

[Elvis Oswald]

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?