Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:25 am.
Frequently Asked Questions
Regarding Flynn Parallel Path Magnet Technology
The following FAQ are in regard to the Directory:Joseph Flynn's Parallel Path technology.
Question : An electric motor's efficiency (mechanical power out/electrical power in) is in the range 80 - 95%, depending on type and size. Multiply this by 3.5, and you get a range 280 - 330%. Isn't that overunity?
There was an error working with the wiki: Code. You have to differentiate between the fields in the system, which are only about 70% efficient, and electrical input. The fields are no more efficient in PP than any conventional motor. Conservation of energy as a concept, applies to fields, and in this respect PP is compliant. Again, the purpose of the control coils is to switch fields already present in the system, not to create fields. It takes much less energy to switch the path of existing flux fields, than to create wholly new ones. This is the key difference in design methodology between a PP compliant motor, and a conventional motor. The overall force multiplication effect delivered by the system is over-unity, but none of the component fields operate to over-unity.
A standard flux analysis sets 400% as the ideal maximum of force manifested relative to electric input. If we define 400% as our ideal expectation for the operation of the system, then that marker point becomes 100%. For example, if a real device manifested 350% more force than was electrically inputted, that would be (350/400)=87.5%. So really, no PP system is ever over 100% efficient, where the terms of reference are properly understood.
Yes. In fact Joe Flynn uses this software to design and optimise his apparatus. This is in-line with the statements that Parallel Path is conventional physics, and can be modelled by standard equations.
Idle undergrads with time to spare are invited to model some of the Directory:Flynn patent images, and upload the models / results to the PESWIKI.
Also, if you want 2-D modeling you may like FEMM
If you like 3-D modeling you may like GMSH
The Parallel Path Egroup did some interesting work in this area, and if you join, you should be able to access some of the models they developed.
No, really, the reason Parallel Path is couched in conventional terms, is because it is conventional technology, applied a little more smartly, and with more precision, than is customary in industry. Those who claim this is vacuum technology, have yet to ship any real product i.e. vaporware.
Some people seem to expect that Joe Flynn, after having spent 25 years working on flux technology, will want to post his entire lab data onto the internet, for anyone to copy / use, so that they can back engineer and copy his technology, without having to do any of the hard work involved in practical development.
While such data would certainly be interesting, this is not a reasonable request. The technology is patented, and the lab data is proprietary to Joe Flynn. The fact it is not posted, does not mean it does not exist. It is normal practise for companies to disclose such data only to interested parties, and after an NDA (Non-disclosure agreement) has been signed.
If you care to learn about the complexities of actual development / implementation of the motor, the best way to do so, rather than demanding things from Joe Flynn, would be to invest the time and effort required to build it yourself.
Basic flux experiments can be conducted without even requiring an electric input, for as little as Directory:FPPP:Simple flux experiment. The Parallel Path effect can be replicated with just the addition of a variable DC 3v power supply. Directory:FPPP:Assembly also exist in the PESWIKI. If you are unable to perform a simple solid state $10 experiment, it suggests the release of raw lab data would be of little use to you anyway.
Because although there are scenarios where a single control coil might have utility, in general you will see a 2.5x force multiplication with the single coil, but 3.5x with two. The single coil layout is substantially less efficient.
Ceramic VIII is recommended.
NIB magnets are too strong. Keep in mind that the iron/silicon laminates saturate at around 19500 gauss. If you divide that by 2 then you get 9750 gauss. This value represents the maxium strength that the magnets can be. If the magnets are stronger then this then the device will get more and more inefficent. You must understand what takes place with the parallel path effect. All of the magnetic fields add together and are focoused to one side of the device.
The requirement for treated, or super strength NIB magnets, as a pre-requisite for over-unity, is one of the most cherished and deepest myths in the area of over-unity claims. It really is immaterial whether you are building an Adams motor, Muller wheel, or Flynn flux core. Over-unity can be obtained with grade 8 ceramics, so long as you configure the apparatus properly. In fact, anything above grade 8, will tend to saturate a flux core, and will in fact REDUCE any over-unity effect being manifested. Even where appropriate, NIBs typically boost absolute output only - they do not increase efficiency.
No. Good results can be obtained with standard materials such as silicon iron. It is also far more important to understand the force point for the apparatus you are using, and match the magnet strength to the flux saturation point / depth of the core. Intelligently used silicon iron will deliver much better results than aimlessly pulsing Metglas. In an ideal world, you'd model your apparatus in flux software, so you can get the maths / input levels spot on.
Materials science improvements hold promise for coming up with improved materials that can handle higher densities of magnetic flux, so stronger magnets can be used without saturating the laminant. This will broaden the range of applications for which the Parallel Path design methodology is appropiate.
You could use a piece of iron for this, but the experiments will end with just static force tests for your model if solid iron or magnetic steel is used. If laminates are used then you can use the model as the base for many cyclic tests as well. These tests are shown on Flynn's web site relating to power generation.
Electrical and magnetic phenomena tend to travel on the surface of structures. Laminates expand the surface area. Also the allignment of the crystal structure of a rolled plate of iron or such is much more reactive to magnetic effects than that of a solid iron block.
Eddy currents create losses through Joule heating, and they reduce the efficiency of many devices that use changing magnetic fields such as iron core transformers and alternating current motors. They are minimized by selecting core materials that have low electrical conductivity or by using thin sheets (laminations) of magnetic material. (Ref.)
Parallel Path Motors have a very broad and flat torque band. Motors that Joe has built will run from very low RPM to as high as 15000 RPM. The key is in the windings. Gage, amp turns, etc..
The speed of a parallel path motor is controled by pulse width modulation not voltage. The voltage to the motor must be held constant at the parallel path effect point.
Yes. However, to maintain the 3.5x performance, you need to profile the loading of the motor, to keep the motor balanced on the force point. This requires detailed proprietary software code. Again, do not expect any such code to be released into the public domain. Although feel free to open source and develop such code through PESWIKI, if you so wish.
Because the rotating magnetic fields in PP motors are 3 times stronger than the electrical input, the amount of recoverable back emf relative to input, will greatly exceed what is found in conventional technologies - typically in excess of 25% of input. Improved windings, fast response high voltage tolerant collection circuitry, can all improve upon that basic result. This is a further area of gain for battery based applications.
There are various approaches to energy recovery via extra windings on PPMT motors. Some locations will induce more motor rotor drag than others. The limit to recovered output is probably more based upon your experimental art, than the limitations of the apparatus itself.
Make the motor drive coil 6.8 ohms, and take a careful look at the current draw of the apparatus - especially under loaded conditions.
No, not that simple, as one fairly noisy researcher discovered. Trying to get a viable full electric load out of the apparatus is high problematic to put it mildly. While it IS a solvable problem, the solution is proprietary at this time, and is so complex it could not be easily replicated by a home experimenter anyway, even with detailed instructions. Suffice it to say the over-unity electrical output results claimed can NOT have possibly been obtained with the circuits that have been published. Either the claims are wrong, or misleading / incomplete circuits were published.
The energy from the input coils just leaks into the output circuit. So the fields of the permanent magnets are static in time, and do not move from one leg to the other. Performing force experiments with the generator windings in place, would reveal this flaw. However, it seems to have eluded hundreds of experimenters, who failed to use a rigorous methodology when conducting their experimentation.
Pulsing the input and output circuits in series is one solution. Well, at least that gives nice oscilloscope shots. But when you try and draw a real load, the waveform collapses. So your method of isolating the input / output circuits needs to be more robust, and may require a more physical approach. Thats a strong hint.
Yes, its amusing how people manage to convince themselves that something you can build at home and test yourself for about $50-400, depending upon what kit you already own, with maybe an hour or so of labor, does not work. I'm reminded of the line from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, "for an encore (man) goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing." Presumably these are exactly the same kind of people who were saying "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" at the turn of the century, and that was Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, in 1895.
STAIF conference 2006? The Boeing corporation? If thats not good enough, define credible. Last time I flew on a Boeing plane it seemed to work pretty well. They seem to understand what works, and what does not, well enough at the Boeing corporation, in a practical sense of engineering and application of the laws of physics.
Already covered above, but try some of these:
The replications have been done many times over. At Boeing, other undisclosed multinationals, the Defense Department, at homes, and on factory production lines.
Already. Its just confidentiality agreements mean its not possible to disclose which OEM products already incorporate this technology. Its also typically implemented only in devices that will not upset the margins of established industries / technologies.
Everyone always said the first person to develop a viable, functional, practical, magnetic free energy system, would get the Nobel prize in physics. Well, I'm not sure Parallel Path gives free energy as such, but in the sense that the systems deliver more magnetic force than was electrically inputted, it certainly satisfies many of the traditional criteria for a 'free energy device.' So now that we have such a system, I think we can in hindsight state that the Nobel prize claim was an idle boast. There never was any such prize on offer.
Very little it would seem. An electromagnetic answer to energy generation and propulsion, compatible with all established laws of physics, can be built for a few hundreds of dollars, while families go without each week to pay their fuel bills. The information to build the device is available for free on this website, is endorsed by major American multi national corporations, has been published at leading scientific conferences, and has been widely replicated by home experimenters.
All I can say is ordinary Americans, Europeans, should perhaps take a look at the way their countries are run, and ask themselves what exactly is going on. Why does the physics community continue to spend billions on hot fusion, trying to solve an energy crisis any competent home experimenter can fix for a few hundred dollars? May I suggest as a starting point for your research, the film End Game: Blueprint For Global Enslavement. You may find some of the answers there.
Based upon observations, at this time it seems China is the country most likely to deploy the technology on a large scale. The political problems seem insurmountable in just about every other major market, due to the entrenched nature of banking cartel. But this does not stop you building a Parallel Path device for yourself, and taking it along to your nearest Physics faculty for testing. If enough people did that, then surely the technique would gain industrial acceptance more quickly.