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.

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Flynn's Parallel Path  (Read 67384 times)


  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2006, 01:41:27 PM »
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 - - 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 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).

Offline Drak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #76 on: June 07, 2006, 04:17:41 PM »
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.


  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #77 on: June 07, 2006, 05:52:03 PM »
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.

Offline Drak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #78 on: June 07, 2006, 07:39:42 PM »
  First paragraph in this page:



  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #79 on: June 07, 2006, 08:03:47 PM »
And when you take the magnets out of the circuit you get 1.6 units of flux from the same current.

Offline Drak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #80 on: June 07, 2006, 08:10:40 PM »
  Ok I see now. Kind of contradicting, right?


  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #81 on: June 07, 2006, 08:49:21 PM »

There are very slight (but significant) discrepencies on the site, but it seems mostly accurate and informative.

It still looks interesting and promising as a general concept.  I'm sure there are uses for the technology when the proper arrangements are devised.

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #82 on: June 07, 2006, 09:54:35 PM »
Hello Jake,,
short magnetic path !
But this are "only" good efficiency motors,88%-91% !
Helmut Schiller motor performance claims:95%-98% !
Also an important parameter of the OU-engine :
high power-density,KW/Nm per kg !

p.s.: When you read or write in FORMULAS  v^2 and c^2 
       then you read or write:acceleration-related !

       A rotor has two sides:why we do not use both,
       DE BUYST-/MUKHERJEE-/RUST- idea/-l !!!
       This are also "circumventing the LENZ-law" solutions !
« Last Edit: June 08, 2006, 03:42:29 AM by lancaIV »

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8054
    • free energy research
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #83 on: June 09, 2006, 02:44:25 AM »

       A rotor has two sides:why we do not use both,
       DE BUYST-/MUKHERJEE-/RUST- idea/-l !!!
       This are also "circumventing the LENZ-law" solutions !

De Lanca, please post more info about this.
Do you have a patent number for this ?Thanks !

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #84 on: June 09, 2006, 03:24:25 AM »
depatisnet or espacenet:
Rust,DE3713965         german      :
De Buyst,BE438189     french       : OPEN SOURCE
Mukherjee,DE2733719  german      :

and actually:   the powermax:Motor/Generator


p.s.: Jake-special:Holger Zeissler,DE19522794 +Rust,DE3713965
       for your car-drive idea !
       "Tilley meets trinitymotors",under OPEN SOURCE condition !!!

« Last Edit: June 09, 2006, 05:10:19 AM by lancaIV »

Offline JackH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #85 on: June 09, 2006, 03:34:06 AM »
Hello lancaIV,

In the past severial years I have been checking out all of the very efficient motors that are working at %95 TO %98 efficiency.  However one problem exist with these motors.  Yes thay are brushless motors and the motor it's self does have the high efficiency rating.  However these motors need a special controll unit to run them.  If you check the power input to the controll unit against the power output from the motor, most of them are running at around %75 efficiency.  The power unit is loosing the efficiency.


Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #86 on: June 09, 2006, 04:15:55 AM »
Hello Jack H.,
I think that the energy "consume" of the controller part is max.10%,
so the range 85% is possible !
But this is only a part of the "puzzle" !

            de Lanca

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #87 on: June 10, 2006, 08:49:58 PM »
Similar to Flynn`s PP motor,
Kango IIDA(JP2004194491) - generator,
and           WO2004057740.

!!!:The WO abstract-in short form-:
starter+ motor +generator combination

WO-images,page 2:diagramm-?


p.s.:for the static generator trial the Keiichiro Asaoka
      publications JP2003079128 (MEG-"clon"?Filling:03.09.01)and
      especially JP2003009558(modul/units)
      could be also a help !
« Last Edit: June 10, 2006, 10:15:57 PM by lancaIV »


  • Guest
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2006, 04:21:01 AM »

Interesting results of Flynn replication used as a MEG.

From the above link:

Dear Mr. Sterling,
I've found your site extremely interesting and well organized.

I'm sending some pictures of my replication of Flynn's PP demonstration

The four laminates pieces are 1 cm wide and stack for about 8mm total thick.
The ceramic magnets are cilinders of 1 cm diameter and 1 cm tall, 4 stacked
for 4 cm total lenght.

The coils are made by 0.4mm wire, 560 turns for each one, wired as
The third, small coil you see in the picture is 75 turns and I used it just
for study the induced signals.

I have used a 0.2mm Aluminum sheet for creating the gap.
Following are the results of two series of experiments.

1. find the "zero flux" current : the flux is zeroed for a current of about
130 mA , corresponding to about 1.2 V across the two coils; under that
the opposing branch fall off and if you try to put it back in place you can
clearly feel no force acting on it.
Note that w/o the gap the current needed to zero the flux falls down to 60

The force was then measured by means of a scale arranged so that I could
gently pull down the device and measure the force:
-with the magnets I have found a max force of 650 g (min was 600 g)
-without magnets but same current, the max force was 200 g (min was 150
-with the magnets but without current the force was about 400 g but
were very scattered.

These numbers suggest an increase of force of about 3.25

2. I have then installed a piezo electric probe in the gap and fed the coils
with the output of a transformer; a 1K potenziometer was used to adjust the
current as per test 1, this current was measured through a 1 Ohm resistor
, 5% accuracy (need to measure its real Ohm).
The 3 oscilloscope pictures show the piezo signal (top trend) and the
to the coils (btm sine wave at 20 mA/Div). Time base was 5 ms/Div.
- Without magnets, the piezo signal is at 100 Hz (two hits for every current
period) , about 240 mV wide
- With one magnet (located in opposite position w/ respect to the branch
with the piezo probe) the signal becomes about 450 mV wide
- With the two magnets in place the signal is now at 50 Hz of about 780
mV wide and the current was not changed at all.

The force is magnified by about 780/240= 3.25 times (by coincidence close
to the scale tests) without any increase of the power to the coils.

Note that the current was swinging between about [+45mA, -45mA] +-5% and
the gap was close to 1 mm due to the piezo thickness: with that current the
flux was probably not completely zeroed and this may explain why the shape
of the force wave is not a perfect sine. I shall repeat the tests with

Note that while the absolute value of magnetic flux is almost double with
the magnets, its variation with time does not seem to change very much when
compared with the one you get without magnets. The use of PP effect for
motors seems to be the "easiest" way of trasforming this magnetic energy
into useful work since inducing the signal into secondary coils seems to
be a little tricky, so far no change was observed in the secondary coil
signal when magnets were added, at least using the 50 Hz sine wave.
If we use the piezo curves to compare the variation of flux with time, with
and w/o magnets, we get (according to my questionable "eyes" reading):

- w/o magnets : signal (force) is about 240mV/5ms = 48 and its square root
is 6.928 units
- with 2 magnets the signal slope is about 780mV/13.5 ms=57.77 and its
root is 7.6 units

So 7.6/6.928=1.096 , we should expect almost 10% increse in the energy

by the secondary coil but this was not the case: so far, I could not detect
any appreciable change in the sine wave induced by the magnetic flux in the
secondary coil.

I would appreciate very much any advise and comment to improve the tests
or correct mistakes, I'm learning a lot.


Guido Capone

I am presently doing some calcs with FEMM software but the best I
could do is to simulate a sequence of steady states, just frozen
situations. In a dynamic state, where Lenz's law and input Volts-
induced Flux phase shifts (as in normal transformer) are involved,
the results may be very different. I know I'm missing the key of it
but at least I'm learning.
So far, however, what I found is that the overall flux change with
time (i.e. dB/dt or I'd better say dB/di) induced by the current is
not different w/ and w/o magnets. The big difference is in the
absolute value of B flux: it doubles with the two magnets in place.
This would theoretically confirm that it can not be operated as a
normal transformes, as we well know.

From a later post on the same site.

Offline penguin hood

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Flynn's Parallel Path
« Reply #89 on: June 28, 2006, 04:23:00 PM »
Anybody can answer this question:

Switching a magnetic flux from permanent magnets beetween two closed magnetic paths using coils. When the electric pulse is OFF, the magnetic field return to initial state (same flux on both magnetic paths) or remains on the magnetic path where was confined when the pulse was ON?