Flynn's Parallel Path

[jake]

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.

[jake]

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.

[Drak]

  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

Controlling 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

[jake]

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.

[Liberty]

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