Flynn's Parallel Path

[jake]

What  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:

The Flynn thing is very interesting at minimum.

At minimum, the Flynn device exposes some interesting things.

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

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.

I encourage you to build the device and test it.

Respectfully, build it and prove it to yourself.

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".

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

I 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.

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

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.

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.

(Do you dispute this?)

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.

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).

[Drak]

he 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.

[jake]

Each 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:

Test 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.

[Drak]

  First paragraph in this page:

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


Drak

[jake]

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