Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83885
  • *Latest: geovat

  • *Total Posts: 522965
  • *Total Topics: 15572
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: Flynn's Parallel Path  (Read 58861 times)

Offline Elvis Oswald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • ONI
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2006, 03:17:55 AM »
Good work Drak. :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2006, 03:17:55 AM »

jake

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2006, 05:22:40 PM »
I've been studying the Asaoka patent 5,926,083 with interest.

I find it noteworthy that the patent says: "... the inventor considers it posible to make Wp/Win2 > 1."  (claims overunity is possible).

Since the inventor went to all the trouble of constructing the test circuit, etc., why didn't the inventor demonstrate Wp/Win2 > 1?

My gut tells me this patent just doesn't work when you apply a load to the output.


Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4063
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2006, 08:18:41 PM »
Hi,

I think the first step in "checking" the inventor claims would be to test the permanent and electromagnet combination if it really reduces the input power of the electromagnet to 1/40 as he claimed to find.
(See Figs 1 and 2 and the text in Asaoka patent). If it can be approached it will prove that a permanent magnet's flux can "amplify"  the flux of an electromagnet significantly and that the inventor is (partly at least) correct in his statements! The 1/40 reduction is a significant claim/achievement in itself and it can be checked.

The next step would be to find a setup (any setup, not only that of the patent) in which this amount of input power reduction could be utilized i.e. make use of the combination of EM-PM magnets: imagine a setup that initially based on electromagnets and needs a certain input power to complete a certain task. Now you could try to combine those electromagnets with permanent magnets to achive a reduction in the input power and still perform the same task.
For instance have a look at Paul Noel's following page at peswiki:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:FPPMT:Paul_Noel and scroll down to "Parallel Path Backdraft ". There Paul suggests inserting a PP setup INTO another PP setup and he says about at least 4:1 gain. What did he draw? He combined an EM-PM setup with another EM-PM setup.

I do not know yet if the full setups or their variants shown in the Asaoka patent is capable of  giving Wp/Win2 > 1 or not.

I think if the inventor had demonstrated in the patent any overunity he would not have been granted the US Patent because of the perpetual motion claim.

Regards
Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2006, 08:18:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




jake

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2006, 02:55:59 PM »
I'm not sure what direction this is heading in at this point.

Clearly Asaoka (from information presented in his patent) constructed the device that he patented.  He claims in the patent that overunity is possible.  He had the device constructed already, and proved that it took 1/40th of the power to do whatever, and yet he didn't go on to show the end result of this feat.

How can the patent be for a generator if the thing won't generate.  This device is a transformer.  It isn't "generating" anything until it is overunity.

Offline Drak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2006, 04:20:59 PM »
  Ok, I've done the weight test using water. Without the magnets in place using the traditional horseshoe electromagnet, I kept filling the container full of water untill it broke away. I kept removing and adding water to narrow down the close to exact amount the traditional electromagnet would hold. Then I put the magnets in place and directed the path. It did not break away using the same amount of water that was in there from before (using just the electromagnet). I had to fill up the container all the way and almost overfilled it to get it to break away.
 
  It seems to me all that is going on here is just adding up the electromagnets and permanent magnets and focusing them all in one direction. The extra water that I added (to get it to break away from the FPP) seemed to be just what would be needed to break away from just the total of the permanent magnets I used. The fact that all of that force (combined E and P magnets) can be directed in one direction and then instantaniously switched to the other end leaving no force at the oppisite end is enough to get me to build a motor out of it. So to me the overunity here is from the power of only the permanent magnets.

  I do not see any amplifying going on here. I could be wrong because it was a crude experiment and I have no expensive scientific measurement tools. In either case I do see a way to harness the power of the permanent magnet wether 3.47 times or 2 times the power in. ANYTHING over the amount put in would satisfy me. The math I couldn't care less about.

  Drak
« Last Edit: May 30, 2006, 04:51:05 PM by Drak »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2006, 04:20:59 PM »
Sponsored links:




jake

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2006, 10:05:54 PM »
Quote
It seems to me all that is going on here is just adding up the electromagnets and permanent magnets and focusing them all in one direction.

That is exactly what is going on.  And that is all that is going on.

I just took a square core and wound a coil on one side and a coil on the other side.  I am putting 5 volts in on the input coil and getting 100 volts out on the other coil!  2000%!  I'm going to hurry up and patent this thing because I've seen it work.  It really is working!  I'm getting out 95 more volts than I'm putting in.  I will post instructions if anyone wants to replicate what I'm doing.


gn0stik

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2006, 10:12:02 PM »
Quote
It seems to me all that is going on here is just adding up the electromagnets and permanent magnets and focusing them all in one direction.

That is exactly what is going on.  And that is all that is going on.

I just took a square core and wound a coil on one side and a coil on the other side.  I am putting 5 volts in on the input coil and getting 100 volts out on the other coil!  2000%!  I'm going to hurry up and patent this thing because I've seen it work.  It really is working!  I'm getting out 95 more volts than I'm putting in.  I will post instructions if anyone wants to replicate what I'm doing.



Uhh, I think I smell sarcasm, but I'm not sure. Is this for real? If this is not sarcasm, of course we'd like to see and/or replicate what you are doing. Of course, just a voltage increase means nothing in and of itself. Could be you just reinvented the transformer.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2006, 10:12:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




jake

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2006, 10:56:47 PM »
Good nose.

Now, can you explain to me why this doesn't work?  I can assure you that I can wind a transformer to give me 2000% voltage increase.  Why is this not overunity?

gn0stik

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2006, 11:35:05 PM »
Because you didn't increase amps with it. V(A)=W

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2006, 11:35:05 PM »
3D Solar Panels

jake

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2006, 12:05:15 AM »
But the math doesn't matter.  If I get 100 volts out, I can just hook up a light bulb and I'm getting more out than I put it.

I have 50 turns on the input, and 2000 turns on the output.  When I apply 5 volts I create some flux through the core.  This flux is passing through the other coil and it is picking up 100 volts from the flux.  I'm sure it will work because it should work.  If I hook up a load, the same amount of flux will still be produced by the 5 volts, so I will have the same flux through the output coil, so I will get 100 volts from 5 volts input.  This has to work.

jake

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2006, 12:34:55 AM »
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.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2006, 12:34:55 AM »
3D Solar Panels

jake

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2006, 01:33:24 AM »
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.

Offline Drak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2006, 02:06:33 AM »
  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
Quote
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

  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2006, 02:50:36 AM »
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.


Offline Liberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
    • DynamaticMotors
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2006, 03:21:06 AM »
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

 

OneLink